tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN July 8, 2011 1:00pm-6:30pm EDT
provide the foundation for economic growth. at this funding level we are not close to addressing the dredging backlog that plagues water-borne commerce in the united states. currently for the top 59 ports in the united states, the corps is only able to maintain authorized steps within the middle of the channel 33% of the time. every day this costs companies that rely on these ports money and sembs as a major impediment to expanding their work force. this is merely one of the reasons in 2009 the american society of civil engineers gave our nation's dams, levees and inland waterways grades of d or d-minus. we knuckleball energy programs in this bill -- renewable energy programs in this bill can be reduced. we can debate on carbon fuels is an environmental problem or an economic problem. either way it's clearly a
national security problem. we must expand the mix of our energy supply and we must use the energy supply we have more efficiently and we must also transport it more effectively. we have to make an investment to do that, and i do not believe that the allocation allows for the support necessary. i would note that the bill adds two hubs to the department of energy while cutting both the science and renewable energy accounts that fund them giving the department a total of five. this organizational model has not yet been proven, and i have serious reservations of starting two new hubs in light of the cuts to the underlying accounts. nonproliferation accounts are reduced significantly. while i appreciate the chairman preserving some of the most critical activities we can't counter the most security threat and that is a threat of nuclear terrorism.
the bill cuts the nuclear nonproliferation account by more than $460 million from the request. this comes on top of more than $360 million cut in fiscal 2011. this reduces our ability to secure vulnerable nuclear materials around the world, limiting our capacity to detect illegal and illicit trafficking of nuclear materials. finally, i'm troubled that the bill includes a misguided prohibition on funds to adopt, implement, administer or enforce a change or supplement to rules related to the clean water act regulatory guidelines. this provision applies not only to this fiscal year but to any subsequent energy and water act. we should be taking actions that address legitimate concerns while providing some clarity and certainty to the
regulatory process, not prolonging the confusion, as this provision ensures. in closing, i again am truly appreciative that we are again doing the work of this committee, and i commend chairman rogers and ranking member dicks for their efforts to this end. as i said at the beginning of my remarks, chairman frelinghuysen has done a superb job. while marginal differences exist, our agreement on the overall bill is fundamental. mr. chair, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from indiana reserves his time. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: i'd like to yield to the chairman of the appropriations committee, the gentleman, mr. rogers from committee. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: five minutes, please. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for five minutes. mr. rogers: i thank the chairman for the time. mr. chairman, this is a great bill. it's a model of fiscal restraint. i can attest to the fact that
the committee has taken a long, hard look at each and every line in this bill to make sure that we're getting the greatest value from each and every taxpayer dollar spent. cutting back from programs that are not operating up to par, this bill is also proof that we can make these commonsense spending reductions without damaging or combaring the programs that help keep -- impairing the programs that help keep our country safe. this alindicates taxpayer dollars where it should be in programs that benefits the american people and gets the economy moving again. this includes $30.6 billion for the army corps of engineers, the department of energy and a host of independent agencies, including the nuclear regulatory commission.
now, that is $5.9 billion below the president's request. it's $1 billion below current spending levels. the energy and water appropriations bill funds important work that affects every community in every single one of our colleagues' districts. these are the quality of life programs that preserve our public safety and our economic competitiveness, including energy independence programs and national defense programs within the department of energy. this bill supports army corps construction projects, projects which are vital to national security and which have a tangible impact on job creation. but this year's bill is unlike any energy and water appropriations bill in recent memory or perhaps even in history in one major way. some of our colleagues and critics were no doubt wondering
how we could write this bill under the earmark moratorium. but i'm proud that we've been able to craft a responsible bill that funds project across the nation without one single earmark. and by doing so we've made the process much more transparent, requiring that organizations like the corps provide an outline of how, when and why they're spending precious dollars while maintaining the congressional authority over budget decisions. we've retained the power of the purse and strict oversight of these agencies. and on the subject of oversight, i'd like particularly note at $35 million is included to continue the yucca mountain review process.
the committee has supported these efforts for years, and i'm relieved to see that the rest of congress is finally beginning to see the light and support this program and to realize the extend to which the administration's position ignores good science and wastes billions of taxpayer dollars. while providing the vital funding for our nation's energy and water programs, the bill abides by the committee's promise and my promise as chairman that we would cut spending wherever and whenever we can. i must commend chairman frelinghuysen and the subcommittee members and staff and the ranking member that have worked so closely together on this bill. they have found the significant spending reductions in areas that have seen excessive and unnecessary increases and in
these accounts with large unspent balances. this is a responsible and serious way to get our budgets back into balance and to help keep us on track toward economic recovery. again, i want to thank mr. visclosky and chairman frelinghuysen for doing a great job in bringing a bill to the floor under difficult circumstances. they work collegially and intelligently together, and i want to particularly thank the subcommittee staff on both sides of the aisle for their tireless effort putting together this legislation. mr. chairman, this is a good bill that all of us can support. i urge that we do just that and yield back. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky yields back. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. visclosky: i would reserve at this time, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from indiana reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: i'd like to recognize the gentlewoman from
missouri for three minutes, mrs. emerson. the chair: the gentlewoman from missouri is recognized for three minutes. mrs. emerson: thank you, mr. chair. i deeply respect my colleagues coming here and raising the subject of increased funds in this bill for the corps of engineers and i also want to thank mr. frelinghuysen and mr. vis cossly for understanding this very important need that money and construction accounts and -- vis cosscally for understanding this very important need that money and construction amounts will go to repair and rebuild flood protections so the victims of historic flooding all up and down the mississippi river and the missouri river can recover from the terrible losses they've suffered. it's not just the people in the southern missouri district i represent who need help. it's also people in louisiana and iowa and north dakota and kentucky and mississippi, illinois and a host of other states. throughout the country people who rely on flood protection to shelter their homes, their
schools, their churches and their workplaces have seen their lives and their livelihoods totally disrupted. in one missouri county alone the economic losses from flooding are estimated at over $300 million. in the entire area the total exceeds $4 billion. without the certainty of future repair for the levee systems that protect them, these americans will remain at risk. they will be unable to rebuild. they'll find it difficult to get insurance. they'll watch their family businesses slip away with the receding floodwaters. there will be many personal disasters even if it never rains another drop. i know that some of our colleagues have raised concerns that this will have high prices to high-speed rail.
i must ask them to weigh the immediate need for flood protection against the future need for high-speed rail. if these repairs aren't completed by next spring, flood protection system that barely hold against the record flood of 2011 will be an extreme danger in 2012. the corps will not have the same tools to avert flooding in many parts of the country, including major urban areas along the river like memphis, tennessee, for example. the funds in this bill respond to an unanticipated disaster of enormous magnitude. failure to fund the effort to reset the levee system nationwide is an unnecessary risk with widespread economic and public safety implications. i urge my colleagues to recognize the certainty this funding provides to distressed families all over the country and i ask them to support a
responsible arrangement during a very difficult budget time for the congress and the nation. i want to commend chairman frelinghuysen for this funding increase, and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from missouri yields back her time. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. visclosky: mr. chair, i would want to yield four minutes at this time to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey, the ranking member on the natural resources committee. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for four minutes. mr. markey: i thank the chair and thank the gentleman from indiana. you know, we continually hear from the republicans that the pain of budget cuts has to be spread around. everyone has to deal with some pain, but we saw that was completely untrue in their budget plan. the g.o.p. said, sorry,
grandma, not enough money for medicare. sorry, low-income kids, we can't afford medicaid. but billions, billions in tax breaks for big oil companies, they all stay on the books. they don't even touch any of the tax breaks for big oil, for big gas, for big coal. tax loopholes that help keep companies offshoring jobs, those were too important to cut as well. the republican plan is about misplaced priorities, and we see it in full display here once again today in this bill on the house floor. when it comes to nuclear power, the republicans want to spend more taxpayer money after
fukushima. when it comes to coal, republicans want to spend more taxpayer money. this bill even keeps alive the deep-water drilling program ensuring that millions in tax breaks continue to be wasted on developing oil-drilling technologies that rich oil companies already have and can afford to pay for themselves by tipping american consumers upside down at the pump every time they go to refill their gas tanks. they don't need taxpayer money to do this. the last in line should be oil companies. they're first in line. they're first in line under the republican agenda. now, when it comes to clean energy, though, when it comes to the future, what young people think should be the
future of our country, solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, clean vehicles, hybrids, plug-in vehicles, all-electric vehicles, more efficient buildings, increase science spending for research so we make the break throughs in energy research, weatherizing homes and building, what does this budget do? down, down, down, down, down, down. they cut those budgets, every one of them. they cut the future. they cut the future. what do they do for the past? for oil, for coal, for gas, for yucca mountain nuclear waste dump? up, up, up with the past. that's what this debate is about. it's a debate about the past versus the future and their budget, this budget cuts the future. it cuts it in a radical way,
and it says to the young people in our country, you're going to have to wait for another generation before we see the breakthroughs in wind and solar and all-electric vehicles. that's the message to the young people across this country in the republican budget. they cut wind and solar $134 million. they cut clean vehicle technology $46 million. green building technology, $61 million. science research, $43 million. weatherization, $141 million. the list goes on and on and on. less money for technologies of the future. i will have an amendment next week that will give us an opportunity to rectify some of these misplaced spending priorities, but i have to hand it to my republican colleagues for one thing. they are actually being honest. may i have one additional minute? mr. visclosky: the gentleman will have two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for two additional minutes. mr. markey: i thank the
gentleman. i have to hand it to my republican colleagues, they are being honest with this bill. for the first time, unequivocally, the republicans are telling americans that their plan is to retreat from a clean energy future, from a solar and wind and biomass and all electric future. they're saying it here. we want to cut all of those programs. there's no hiding behind the numbers. they're screaming out here at the members of the house on the floor. and to the young people of our country, they're screaming, we are going to retreat from the future. they can't talk about their all-of-the-above energy program anymore, no, ladies and gentlemen. their program is not all of the above, it's oil above all. that's what it's about. that's how they keep the tax breaks, that's how they keep the subsidies for the oil industry. they cut the programs for wind and solar, which industry in
america is the last one right now -- wind industry in america is the last one right now that need as -- what industry in america is the last one that needs a tax break? it's the oil industry. if we're going to begin anywhere can we begin with them? do we have to take it out of clean energy to keep all the tax breaks for those wealthiest companies? you know who's the happeniest right now? who's really smiling? the corners of their mouths are turning upwards all across venezuela, all across saudi arabia, all across opec. they're looking ot here at the republican budget for the future and they're saying, ah, we can sleep at night, we don't have to worry that there will be more efficient vehicles, we don't have to worry that they're moving to an all-electric vehicle future. we don't have to worry that they're going tell us that they don't need oil anymore than we need their sand. no. their message is going to be, bring it on, let us continue to go on our hands and knees and beg for them to please produce
more oil, please sell us more oil at $100 a barrel. please do that. that's what this republican budget says. vote no. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from indiana reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i'd like to yield three minutes to mr. latham. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. latham: i thank the chairman and i thank mr. frelinghuysen for the time and, mr. chairman, i rise in support of this bill that -- simply to make a point about the emergency funds and the offset that's provided to the army corps of engineers. i think everyone is aware but i want to emphasize the dire situation we have today on the mississippi river and certainly a very dire situation we have on the missouri river today that is costing lives, costing livelihoods and businesses and the futures for so many
families. we also, mr. chairman, have a dire situation with our deficit today and we've got to address that. in order to fund the immediate repairs for the life-saving levees, the committee proposed an offset from the high speed rail and that's really a program that they're talking about that in 10 years still won't be beyond the planning phases. as the chairman of the transportation and housing, urban development subcommittee on appropriation, i understand that a portion of this money will have gone to very important projects in the northeast corridor and some of these projects have great merit and chairman frelinghuysen has been the strongest advocate for funding for these projects that do have merit. he understands it, i understand it, we're going to do everything we can to fund those projects because they are needed up there. but i will also say that today we have an emergency beyond
anything that i've ever seen before in my years. a week ago wednesday i was standing on a levee on missouri river by the town of percent vill, iowa. -- persivil, iowa. people were trying to save their farms, their community. some of those farmers, it was fifth and sixth generation farms in their spots there. and they were fighting desperately to save their livelihood and their families' heritage. that was 3:00 in the afternoon on wednesday. at 4:00 the next morning, thursday morning, that levee plue out. and those livelihoods -- blew out. and those livelihoods, all those thousands of acres of farmland, the town of percival itself is now under water. that's why these funds are desperately needed today as soon as possible to make sure that we
can fund the type of emergency that we have going on today. the army corps of engineers needs that money today so that they can repair those levees, so that we can save lives and livelihoods and heritage for generations to come again. mr. chairman, this today is not about a question of what we want . we all want to see improvements in the northeast corridor and we're going to do everything we can to make that happen. but it's about what is needed today, what is an emergency today, what funds have to go to dire problems that we face and the dire consequences we'll face if in fact we do not do the work that we need to do today. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. latham: i commend the chairman for his great work and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from iowa yields back his time. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from indiana is recognized.
mr. visclosky: i would inquire the chair if you have additional speakers? mr. frelinghuysen: no. mr. visclosky: at that point then, i would simply again thank the chair, the members of the committee, and the exceptional staff we have for their good work and i would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey yields back his time. mr. frelinghuysen: i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the committee rises.
the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union have had under consideration h.r. 2354 directs me to report that it has come to nos remain title of the resolution -- resolution thereon. -- has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 2354 and has come to no resolution thereon. the chair lays before the house the following personal request. the clerk: leave of absence
requested for mr. campbell of california for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. the chair will entertain one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one pin -- minute. mr. poe: mr. speaker, the very notion of freedom of expression was recently on trial in the netherlands. the popular dutch lawmaker was charged with the discrimination and incitement of hatred after he made a movie of islamic clerics inciting violence. he was prosecuted not for his actions but for his words. that's a scary thought. there was only one proper resolution here and thankfully the court did the right thing. he was acquitted of all charges, the court ruled that his statements must be offensive to muslims but fell within the bounds of political free debate. freedom of speech is a god-given right to which every person and
every nation is entitled. it is no coincidence that our country's founding fathers deemed it so important, they listed it first in the bill of rights. a country that refuses one's freedom of speech is doomed to grow stagnant. how can it develop a society when it stifles or tries to punish opinion? as he himself said, every public debate holds a prospect of enlightenment. he certainly was correct. and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: are there further one-minute requests? under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker.
believe that people should be entitled to the truth. in fact, many libraries around the country have the line, the truth shall set you free. of course most people don't know where that came from. it was jesus talking about him being the truth and he was the truth and a lot of libraries that put that up don't realize that's what it's talking about. and i imagine there are a lot of reporters who have used that same line, they don't know where that came from. but what gets troubling is when reporters have access to complete transcripts, video and they intentionally set out to deceive the public. it seems to happen a great deal. i personally think it's one of the reasons that fox news has just taken off so strongly
because people could see that the other cable news networks, so many of them at least, have such a slant. they don't give you the whole truth. there's nothing fair nor balanced about some of the presentations. i know personally, having been on a cnn show, where they cut your mike off for 4 1/2 minutes, trash mouth you for a while, turn your microphone on and then refuse to acknowledge that there's even the possibility that what you're saying is true when you know indeed it is true. but this happened just here in the last week. i was on a fox business show and we were talking about the money being spent by this white house and also comparing that to the
bush white house and i had the data, absolute factual data, that, you know, for example, in the bush white house there were 447 total staff and in the obama staff there's 454 total white house staff. wouldn't think seven additional people would be that big of a deal except nearly a fourth of the bush white house staff, 102 people, in fact, made under $40,000. whereas in the obama white house there is no paid staff member that gets less than $40,000. so you see dramatically the difference, and i was pointing out that perhaps in the obama
white house, because of all the greatness of this white house as compared to prior white house staffs that, you know, you deserve to be paid more because you're associated with so much more greatness in this white house. it's interesting to see over the last 6 1/2 years i've been in congress, there are an awful lot of people in the mainstream media, pearblely in washington, that do not understand sarcasm -- especially in washington, that do not understand sarcasm, they don't understand things, and understand they won't get it. in any event, we also commented on the fact that there were 34 czars in the obama white house,
and they're getting paid tremendous amounts of money. so the fox news published an article, and they pointed these things out -- talking about the interview -- and they got all the quote accurate. as they pointed out, it said the white house released its annual salary report to congress and like anything in washington it all depends on who you ask if they went up too much or an adequate reflection of the tough economic times and have moved down. this is the writing of kimberly schuant with fox news. it shows that about a third of the employees make more than
$100,000 per year and the lowest earn $41,000 except for three people who are working for no compensation or zero alley salary. 21 employees made the maximum of $172,000. the white house backs the figures saying salaries went down an average of $150 per person and total salary spending decreased due to the number of staffers going down as well. then, the quote from spokesman eric schultz from the white house. president obama is deeply committed to continuing to reduce costs in government. however, some critics say they're spending too much, like representative louie gohmert, republican of texas, and quoted me accurately saying, in the white house, in looking at it, this administration has over 450 employees, and under the bush administration there were
about 100, about a fourth of the employees made less than $40,000, unquote. fox news fact checked and the congressman's statements do pan out with 102 of the 447 employees on the 2008 list having salaries of less than $40,000. another quote from me. i said, i guess you know there's so much greatness when you associate with this white house you deserve to be paid more. i don't know, he said. gohmert has another sarcastic jab. quote, don't forget the 34, the 34 czars that are out there dictating policy. and let's face it, when you're a dictator you need to be paid more. closed quote. and it points out, as the economy faltered, president obama enacted a pay freeze earlier in his administration for top wage earners. wednesday at a twitter town
hall he referenced the freeze. we know from the white house -- the house rules that the president never lies or misrepresents but certainly there are many facts that are just wrong. for example, when the president ordered our troops to bomb libya, be involved in what he caught a kinetic attack in libya, which was clearly military action, he said we would be there for days, not weeks or months. and it's turned out it's months and maybe years unless congress gets the senate to go along with one of the things we passed here in the house, to
cut off the spending in a country where this president is fighting for and with a group that may turn out to be worse than the bloodthirsty, mean-spirited gaddafi has been. in any event, there's an article written in "the hill" newspaper, and, again, this was fact checked by fox news. but it's just interesting. you hear about it all the time. the slant of the mainstream media. and it's interesting because "the hill" has reporters, like molly hooper. i never had herb anything but completely honest and -- and her anything but completely honest and truthful. she's been fair in reporting. this is a person named judy
kurtz who, i just have to say, was dishonest. this is a story that judy kurtz wrote this week, july 6, in "the hill." she quoted me as saying, "i guess there's just so much greatness when you're associated with this white house that you deserve to be paid more." representative louie gohmert said. "let's face it, when you're a dictator you need to be paid more." well, that gave the impression to people who read the article and picked up on it that i was saying president obama was a dictator. in this setting, that is not what i said. but the interesting point is just how clearly deceptive and dishonest judy kurtz was
because she took two quotes, had access to the whole video, to the whole transcript, and chose to put them together and give the wrong impression. because when you do look at the full quote in context we were talking about the czars, there's so much greatness when you're associated with this white house you deserve to be paid more. but then don't forget the 34, the 34 czars that are out there dictating policy. and let's face it, when you're a dictator you need to be paid more. so it is important to note there's some reporters you can trust, even within the same newspaper, and there's some that can be dishonest. during my days as a trial judge
, major civil litigation, fell knees, including death -- felonies, including death penalty cases, the rule of evidence is and always is, the credibility is always an issue. it's always an issue. everyone should understand that, especially reporters who are so important to this country being different from any other country in the world. so it's hoped that more and more reporters will get back to deserving their protected status that they have under the constitution and have a little more responsibility than judy kurtz did. in any event, it still is important -- and i did appreciate ms. kurtz noting that i was being sarcastic to
make sure that people like her didn't miss it. i didn't want her to leave it to chance. i pointed out verbally that i was being sarcastic. i'm glad she got that part of the quote. nevertheless, i heard from people that was shocked that i called president obama a dictator. and now they know the context. but there are some important things going on, and with the massive overspending we're doing, it's important to understand who's spending money where they shouldn't. we have just voted out the defense appropriation bill today. there were a number of amendments that were voted on that would defund the action this president has committed us to in libya. this president has repeatedly said that he doesn't believe he violated the war powers act and
doesn't believe he needed to comply, but he certainly didn't comply with the war powers act. he certainly didn't get approval of congress before he took such action. most presidents, knowing that congress has constitutionally the power of the purse, have come to congress and the president has made his case to congress as to why we should be involved in a theater of operation that the president wanted to commit us. not this president, of course. this president heard from the arab league, he heard from apparently some of nato, the u.n., and decided that they were more important than a consensus from congress. not even from the senate. the nat is democrat controlled.
the -- the senate is democrat controlled. the president didn't bother to get a vote or approval from the senate. and here in the house where this body, whether -- especially has a republican majority has steadfastly stood with the president of any party when that president committed troops to harm's way. in this case, there are still some in the republican party who've said, i don't think we ought to be in libya but i'm afraid if i vote to cut off funding in libya then it may be perceived as not being supportive of the troops. some of us that have been in the military and still talk constantly to people in the military know the common response we get from the military goes something like this.
sir, we take orders, we salute and we follow our orders. that's what we took an oath to do. and if we are ordered to go to libya or anywhere else, we'll salute and go. but we hope, we pray that somebody in washington will use some good sense so that when we lay down our lives in the call of duty from washington that it will not be in vain. please take action to make sure that when we lay down our lives it's not wasted. and for this administration and some in congress -- certainly not a majority -- to think it's a good idea to go into libya and to get our services
involved in an action which secretary of defense gates said we have no national security interest in that action it's not a good idea. and when we find out factually that there are al qaeda, a group with whom we are at war, and there are muslim brotherhood who believe in violence, involved in the rebel action against an evil gaddafi, then wisdom would indicate you should find out if the person that is going to be replaced by your bombs and your military or kinetic action, you have an obligation to find out if they are going to be worse than the person you're replacing. and we don't know that. in fact, the indications are
whoever replaces gaddafi in this current rebel group will likely be a tremendous enemy of israel, a significant enemy of the united states. it may be a situation in which the people that replaced an intolerant leader, like gaddafi, may be worse than gaddafi, just as we saw happen in iran back when jimmy carter was president, and as i recall, i believe jimmy carter welcomed the ayatollah khomeini back as a man of peace. his peace was different than most of ours and certainly the part in congress that's in the majority. because khomeini's idea of peace was a world in which there is a
worldwide caliphate and one great muslim leader dictates what peace means. he dictates shari'a law for everyone. there is no freedom of worship for christians, for buddhists, for -- certainly not for jewish people of orthodox faith, absolutely not, in fact they're obviously infidels from the things that were written and the things that continue to be written and spoken in the middle east. in egypt mubarak was a problem but mubarak had seen the handwriting on the wall and he was moving toward some local elections and could see he needed to move toward the idea of democracy. but didn't want to give up power. mubarak, for all his flaws, at least was not active, not an
active belligerent against israel. gaddafi we knew had blood on his hands bewe also saw from -- but we also saw from ronald reagan dropping bombs down his smokestack i believe in 1986 and then again when the united states mooved -- moved into iraq we saw it again, gaddafi was afraid of us. and perhaps it's better to have a leader who is afraid of you in power than people who are religious if a fan it the -- fanatics who have sworn that their goal in life is to bring your country down. one of the important things and to me i think it's the most important job, mr. speaker, here in congress is to provide for the common defense.
we heard the president down on the border not long ago say he's committed more federal troops to our border than any president ever, more people down there to protect our border anyway, and actually he probably didn't have enough history training to know that in 1916 presidents would row wilson, not a big fan of president wilson's, but nonetheless after a man named pancho villa was responsible coming across into the united states and killing some americans, wilson committed a general to go, my recollection it was around 14,000 troops that went into mexico because he come across -- villa had come across our sovereign border and killed people, then it was deemed to be
appropriate to chase him down wherever he might go because that individual with his cronies had declared war on us and taken warlike action and there was also a group, a new group basically, some called the national guard, that were culled -- called up. one account i read said 100,000 national guard soldiers were kaled to our southern border to ensure that no one came across and killed americans again. now, i know that president bush committed national guard troops and i was very disappointed that the troops were not put on the border, they were put miles back and they were given rules of engagement that said in essence if you see some armed group coming from across the border
then you're to report it and then flee the area. well that's not what should have been done. and i can assure what's being done today is not what should be done, where we take more action to go against the states that are trying to defend themselves than we do to try to defend the states themselves. but we are in a crucial time in this country's history, admiral mullen said the national debt is the biggest threat to our security but take your pick. whether it's a nation like iran that is led by a religious zealot who may be crazy but he's not stupid, they've got people working toward, round the clock, moving toward having nuclear weaponry. they already have at least one bomb.
and even though our friends down in the majority in the senate, even though this white house so many say, oh, no we just need to step up sanctions and all will be well, we'll bring them into line, iran knows that once they've got enough in the way of nuclear weaponry that they'll be able to extort countries into removing any type of sanctions. people in israel are well aware, most of them, certainly prime minister netanyahu is, that when iran has adequate nuclear weaponry there will be a threat -- they'll be a threat to israel, they'll be a threat to freedom, they'll be a threat to liberty around the world. because they will be able to take blackmail or extorted action to get countries either do as they say or a nuclear weapon will be going off in that
country. they're working on the missiles that will be able to carry those nuclear weapons to places like the united states and even now it wouldn't take a missile to put a nuclear weapon on a boat, aat, bring it into one of our harbors -- a@, bring it into one of our harbors and let's face it, we saw our vulnerability on 9/11, many of us, even though i was a judge at the time, we said, we can never let ourselves be that vulnerable again. and here we are nearly 10 full years later and we're allowing a mad man, a religious zealot in iran, to develop nuclear weapons , sanctions haven't worked, they're not working, the centrifuges are still turning,
they're still developing nuclear weaponry, we've got these type of threats in the world and instead of standing firm as ronald reagan did which led to bringing down the iron curtain this administration has chosen to placate our enemies and turn against many of our allies. that was further brought home to me, i traveled with dana rohrabacher and a couple of other members of congress, there were warlords from the northern alliance of afghanistan that wanted to meet with us because we were told that the administration didn't want to meet with them and after we met with them it was clear why the administration wouldn't want to. now, i was not aware and it was
during the bush administration, of course, our initial actions in afghanistan, we sent in intelligence, we sent in special forces, we sent in weaponry, we equipped the northern alliance tribes who had a special personal interest in defeating the taliban. and afghanistan as a whole had seen how evil the taliban was. how much damage they could do to society as they burned paintings and books and films and totally suppressed freedom in afghanistan. they knew. these people were evil but they were afraid of them but with the united states weaponry, with our guidance and intelligence training these people defeated the taliban. what i was not aware of until we
met with these folks and turns out i could have been aware, i just was not, but do you the research, you find out, the bush administration convinced the northern alliance, ok, now that you've whipped the taliban you need to totally disarm. because we're the united states and we're here and we'll make sure nothing happens to you again. well, the northern alliance messed up because they trusted us and they turned in their weapons, i asked one, you turned in all your weapons? well, apparently they have some small arms, but nothing that would allow them to take on the taliban again. naturally these people were concerned because they know because they fought for and with the united states against the taliban that if the taliban is allowed to overtly exist in afghanistan then these people
that fought for us and with us will all be killed as with all their family members. they were and are our allies, they fought for us, they defeated the taliban and now we're on the verge of leaving these people disarmed, vulnerable and to be killed by the very people we went in to afghanistan after. it doesn't have to be this way. it doesn't have to be this way at all. we can learn from the past. rearm the northern alliance, we've perceived the arrogance, the condescension, not only from prime minister maliki in iraq but certainly from the leader in afghanistan, karzai, certainly
from his brother, there's just too much arrogance there, all kinds of stories about corruption, whether or not you believe that it's clear that the taliban is being allowed to do things now in afghanistan that we were supposed to have eliminated by our coming in. it may well be as one afghan told me that once we begin, if we would to rearm the northern alliance, karzai might be a lot more cooperative than he has been. but nonetheless a year ago we were being told, your administration in washington, the obama administration is indirectly talking, negotiationing with the taliban to just let the united states out without any big incidence and then they can have whatever they take. and that's when they pointed out
, you can't let this happen, you can't do this to your allies. well, we've already seen with israel, we voted with israel's enemies in may of last year, i believe it was, to demand that israel disclose all their weaponry, their nuclear weaponry, first time the united states had joined forces with israel's enemies and it was one of the reasons that shortly after that we saw the flotilla come from turkey down to challenge the israeli block aid, -- blockade, it was a blockade for one thing, weapons, prevent weapons from going into the gaza strip. rockets were coming every day, israelis had been killed, there was no reason to allow those weapons to come into the gaza strip. there was a legitimate blockade, it came after we showed distance
between our great ally israel and this country. that also came on the heels of the president snubbing prime minister netanyahu and of course prime minister netanyahu has not spoken of this that i've ever heard or read but certainly others noted how badly he was snubbed by the president, blow him off where normally he would have a meal saying, good luck on your own and when you get ready to accept what i told you to do, send me a note and i'll come back to you. but anyway, we have not been allies as we should be to israel but it was after that i started pushing to try to get prime minister netanyahu, the leader of israel, to be invited to speak in this room, speaker pelosi, when i broached the subject with her, thought it was a good idea. but she didn't feel that there was adequate time and i brought it up in june between then and
the end of the year to work him in. and obviously we did have to name a lot of courthouses and had athletic teams to congratulate so we weren't able to get to that. but speaker boehner, to his credit, did extend the invitation. prime minister netanyahu did an incredible idea -- job with the ideas he put forth, he did an incredible job in the second level here of addressing this body and addressing the world from here in congress. what i hoped for came to pass. the world got an ib credible visual image of the fact that this body, both sides of the aisle, that can't hardly agree on much of anything, over and over. i'm told 26 times, stood to applaud the leader of israeli
-- israel, that we are united in our support for israel in congress regardless what the house down pennsylvania avenue does the rest of the time. congress controls the purse strings and congress is a friend of israel and vice versa. so it is important in order to provide for the common defense of this country that we make sure that our allies know if you're our friend, then we stand by you. if you're our enemy, then you will do as president kennedy pointed out, as president bush pointed out, we will seek you wherever you are and we will eliminate you as an enemy. by doing that, you can have peace in the world. the sign that emerges time to
time, i've seen it up here, seen it in new york, war never brought about peace, says a great deal about the history teacher, the -- an individual to carry that kind of sign must have had because the only time you have peace for an extended period is when a big-hearted country does take on evil that has grown too big and become a threat to people's liberty and freedom, defeats that evil, then you have a period of peace. and the only way it becomes an extended peace is when a country is strong enough or countries are strong enough that the world knows if you become a threat to our liberty, our freedom, then we will eliminate you as a threat to
freedom. now, again, there are those who , i believe, thatry -- thatry ala is dictated -- shari allah is dictated by the leader of the group. that also brings me back to the issue of the muslim brotherhood. this administration has given indication that they think it's a group of peace. you can go on wikipedia and the proponents of the muslim brotherhood have done an excellent job of cleaning up the history that shose them to be supporters of -- shows them to be supporters of terrorism and the numerous ties linking them to terrorism in the world. they've also done a good job of
making this administration believe that they are peaceful and loving to the point that as dennis mcdonough, the number two person in our national security agency or administration, thaad the president, majeed, the president of the islamic society of north america for the wonderful prayer he gave inside the white house in the celebration of i tar last year, the end of diptar last year, the end of ramadan, that president obama had. the islamic society is north america is a named co-conspirator in the holyland foundation trials in which the first five defendants were found guilty of 108 counts of supporting terrorism, and when some tried to have their names stricken because they were not
indicted in that first action, the judge in essence ruled there's been a prima facie case here showing that they are linked in supportive of terrorism, we're not eliminating their names. so it was shocking to some of us when the holder justice department dropped the cases against the named co-conspirators and refused to go forward with them. this notebook has some material , and there are plenty of them, if anyone can see. this is a thimble pool compared to what is there. you want checks from the
islamic center's co-op funds, you want deposit slips, you want ledgers, the f.b.i. gathered all this stuff. there are great case against all these groups that the holder justice department decided not to pursue. and when we had attorney general holder in front of our judiciary committee and he was asked about dropping it, he acted like and basically stated he had nothing to do with it, that was something down in texas, attorney down there, and he could get us a copy of "the dallas morning news" article where the u.s. attorney or actually it was acting u.s. attorney, made that statement that politics played no role. well, certainly politics played a role and that became very obvious, and the more we find the more it appears the attorney general is not honest about perhaps the reason that these were not per seed.
but until we find out the -- pursued. but until we find out the actual reasons of these being dropped we will not know how honest or dishonest the situation with this attorney general is. i know that chairman issa is pursuing fast and furious investigation. but on this one we could put this whole matter to bed very quickly if the attorney general will just produce the memorandum that chairman pete king and chairman lamar smith have requested from the justice department. if you'll come forward, not blank it out, then we'll find documentation of whether or not the attorney general had said in testifying before congress was true or not. now, it was interesting to find
that the f.b.i. had a special relationship, a special partnership with care, yet another of the named co-conspirators in the holyland foundation trial and it was rather shocking to me that it was not until 2009 that the f.b.i. can he sided to end their special relationship with this named co-conspirator in the holyland foundation case. apparently the f.b.i. had had a special relationship with care for years even though the f.b.i. began to gather these
materials back as early as 3e and had solid proof for -- as 1993 and had solid proof for a number of years and supported hamas and terrorism and yet nothing was done until 2009 when a letter was sent saying because of the evidence that was introduced some months back regarding care and the relationships with terrorism, we think it's appropriate to suspend our relationship for now. now, i realize that there are people in the media, as we saw this one reporter from "the hill" will not give adequate coverage, will take quotes out of context in order to misrespect or give people a false impression. but if this is adequately looked at, and even though if
it's adequately looked at people will find the truth that we have people who've been associated with support of terrorism coming to the white house, one who is president of a group who certainly from the documentation appears to have supported terrorism, leading the white house in prayer, and then we find out that when the president was giving a speech at the state department in the state department security was very, very tight. it was difficult to get in without going through all the checking bag checking and the metal detectors and all the things you had to go through to make sure security was tight, apparently the white house invited majeed, invite him
within the inner sanctum of the state department to listen to the president's speech and let him give comments of what he thought about this speech. at some point this administration is going to have to get around to the point where providing for the common defense means you get tough with people who associate with groups that support terrorism. you don't do as senator obama said and just go talk to terrorists because you're so apparently warm and friendly and really the president, having met with him, he is a charming man. he comes across as bright, engaging. you want to like him. and apparently that's worked so
well he must think that he can convince religious extremists folks that we can get along with him. when you are talking about people who want to destroy your way of life, there's only one way to deal with them. we've seen from the attacks in the early days of our country's existence from islamic zellics in north africa who captured our ships, took prisoners. the men on those ships, held them for ransom, used some as slaves, willing to kill or enslave others. and i read at one point -- and it's hard to believe that this is true. hopefully it's not. at one point we may have paid
as much as 18% of the country's budget back in the late 1790's for getting our sailors back from the pirates, these islamic extremists. thomas jefferson, who was sent at one point as one of the diplomats to negotiate with the muslim extremists was taken aback that when he asked, why would you attack american ships? we're no threat to you. we don't have a powerful navy. we've never attacked you. and reportedly was told that we in our religion believe we go to paradise if we were to die while attacking infidels like you. jefferson was shocked. he was extremely well-read person. he found it hard to believe there was a religion anywhere that any believer of that
religion perceived that you could go to a paradise by killing innocent people. so he got his own english translation of the koran that can still be found in the library of congress so he could read for himself. some of the passages are subject to interpretation, and certainly have been interpreted by some as meaning the only way to proceed is to attempt to take out infidels like those of us who are christians, those of us -- those who are jewish because we are certainly considered infidels in their eyes. thank goodness not all muslims believe that has to be what occurs, but that is certainly what some believe. anyway, i might read a passage from the judge's decision from
july 1, 2009, in response to the effort by the named co-conspirators, some of them to have names stricken, who were not actually indicted in the first trial, but the judge, having reviewed acting attorney general -- acting u.s. attorney jack's memos, he said this -- the government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of care, isna, and nait with the holy foundation, h.l.f., the islamic association for palestine, and with hamas. while the court recognizes that the evidence produced by the government largely predates the holy land foundation designation date, the evidence is nonetheless sufficient to show the association of these
entities with the holy land foundation, hlf, i.h.p., and hamas. the jum said, thus, maintaining the names of the entities on the list is appropriate in the light of the evidence proffered by the government. it's important to note, care, with whom our justice department had a special relationship until on into 2009 , isna, the evidence has certainly been produced by the government, shows, as the judge says, ample evidence to establish the associations with these groups with holy land foundation, a group that was convicted as well as hamas. and yet this administration continues, i guess to think that their winning
personalities, charming as they are, will bring people around and so they trust them to come into the inner santh up only they have -- sank um of the white house -- sanctum of the white house and the justice department. there are those over the years who have believed that our answers would come from prayer. virtually every president, i guess every president, has indicated such, that this nation is best protected when it prays. and that is why you would have such an amazing minister as
peter marshall as chaplain in the united states senate back in the 1940's and this book that i've referenced previously is really profound. i would, mr. speaker, like to finish up reading a couple of prayers that have been prayed in the united states senate in the 1940's by u.s. nat chaplain peter marshall. one prayer says, forgive us lord jesus for doing the things that make us uncomfortable and guilty when we pray. we say that we believe in god, yet we doubt god's promises. we say that in god we trust, which can be found right up above the speaker's head, yet we worry about try to manage our own afairs. we say that we love thee, oh lord, yet do not obey thee.
we believe you have the answer to all our problems b yet we do not consult thee. forgive us our lack of faith and the willful pride that ignores the way, the truth, and the light. will thou reach down and change the gears within us that we may go forward with thee. amen. and that was peter marshall's prayer, one of his prayers, as chaplain of the senate in the 1940's. i'll conclude with this prayer by peter marshall, 1940's, he said, o lord, our god, even at this moment, as we come blundering into thy presence an prayer, we are haunted by memories of duties unperformed, promptings disobeyed, and beckonings ignored.
opportunities to be kind knocked on the door of our hearts and went weeping away. we are ashamed, o lord, and tired of failure. if thou art drawing close to us now, come nearer still until selfishness is burned out within us and our wills lose their weakness in union with thine own. amen. it is important to note, prayers for the individuals to ad here, as george washington said, to have a humble imitation of the designer of our blessed religioning as washington said, those are for individuals. but we get questions on, well, how can you be a christian and not want to give away all the government money to the poor an needy? how can you be a christian and not want to give away the
government money to do all these other things and to end a defense department, have no soldiers, just be people of peace? and i know that in this great country, we've got virtually every religion being practiced that's known to man. but in the christian religion, for those that believe the new testament means what it says, roemans 13 is very clear. the government exists as god's minister to encourage good. romans 13:4 says if you do evil, be afraid. god does not give the government the sword in vain. it does say sword. that is the purpose of government. we took an oath to follow the constitution. we're supposed to provide for the common defense.
we're supposed to have an army, a military that protects this nation so that people can practice the religion of their choice, whether it's islam peaceably, christianity, judaism, buddhism, human secularism, that seems to have often overtaken washington. you have the freedom to do that. but the government's role is to protect the country, protect the people, keep people from coming in through our borders that want to harm us so that individuals can give from the blessings of their heart to help the needy to help the poor to help others. you cannot find one reference in the new testament that says government is to go about using and abusing its taxing authority, legalize stealing from people who have earned the money so that we can give it
mr. gohmert: at this time, i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes visit. the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stands adyourned until noon on monday -- scheduled district work time during the week so that members can consider a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. this is one week earlier than scheduled.
live bridge of the house monday -- coverage of the house on monday here on c-span. the unemployment rose to 9.2%, and the economy added 18,000 jobs in the month of june according to the labor department's monthly report issued today. president obama says the economy can help create jobs by taking a few steps under consideration and said the ongoing debt negotiations have the opportunity to stabilize the economy. >> good morning, everybody. over the last couple of days, the debate here in washington has been dominated by issues of debt limits. what matters most to americans and what matters most to me as
president in the wake of the worst downturn in our lifetimes is getting our economy on a sounder footing more broadly so the american people can have the security that they deserve. that means getting back to a place where businesses grow and are hiring, where new opportunities are in reach, where middle-class families know the security and peace of mind they've felt slipping away for years now. we still have a long way to go and a lot of work to do to give people the security and opportunity that they deserve. we had added more than 2 million private sector jobs, but the recession cost us more than 8 million. that means we still have a big hole to fill. each new job created last month is good news for the people who
are back at work and for the families that they take care of and for the communities that they are a part of the. but our economy as a whole is now producing nearly enough jobs for everybody who is looking. we have always known that we have had the ups and downs on the way back from this recession. over the past few months, the economy has experienced some tough headwinds. local budget cuts have cost tens of thousands of cops, firefighters, and teachers their jobs. the problems in europe as well as uncertainty over the debt limit ceiling will be raised has made businesses hesitant. the economic challenges that we face were not created overnight, and they are not going to be solved overnight. but the american people expect
us to act on every single good idea that is out there. i read a letter after letter from folks hit hard by this economy. none of them asked for much. some of them poured their guts out in these letters, and they want me to know that what they are looking for is that we have done everything we can to make sure that they are rewarded when they are living up to the responsibilities, when they are doing right by their communities, when they are playing by the rules. that is what they are looking for. they feel like the rules have changed. they feel like the leaders on wall street and in washington, and believe me, no party has been exempt, has left them down. they wonder if their efforts will be reciprocated by the beard leaders. they point out how much pride
and faith they have in this country. they are positive that things can get better, and believe that we can make things better. how we respond is up to us. there are a few things that we can and should do right now to redouble our efforts on behalf of thelet me give you some exam. right now, there are over a million construction workers out of work up for the housing boom went bust, just as a lot of american needs rebuilding. we connect the two by investing in the rebuilding our roads and our bridges and our railways and our infrastructure, and we could put back to work right now some of those construction workers that lost their jobs when the housing market went bust. right now, we can get our entrepreneurs the chance to lead their jobs-creating ideas move to market faster by
streamlining our patent process. that is pending before congress right now. that should pass. today, congress can advance trade agreements that, -- that will help businesses sell more american-made goods and services to asia and south america, supporting thousands of jobs here at home. that could be done right now. right now, there are a lot of middle-class families who sure could use the security of knowing that the tax cuts that i signed in december to gelber's to the economy and put $1,000 in the pockets -- to boost the economy and put $1,000 in the pockets of american families, that that is still going to be around next year but that is a change reconnect right now. there are bills and a trade agreement before congress right now beckett did all these ideas moving. all of them have bipartisan support. all of them could pass immediately, and i urge congress not to wait. the american people need us to do everything we can to help
strengthen the economy and make sure that we are producing more jobs. also to put on our economy on a starter and a sounder footing for the future, we have got to rein in our deficits and debt the government to live within its means, while still making the investments that helped put people to work right now and make us more competitive in the future. as i mentioned, we have had some good meetings. we had a good meeting yesterday with leaders of both parties from congress. while real differences remain, we agree to work through the weekend at a meet back here on sunday. the sooner we get this done, the sooner that the markets know that the debt limit ceiling will have been raised and that we have a serious plan to deal with our debt and deficit, the sooner that we give our businesses the certainty that they will need in order to make additional investments to grow and hire and
will provide more confidence to the rest of the world as well so that they are committed to investing in america. the american people sent us here to do the right thing, not for a party, but for country. so we're going to work together to get things done on their behalf. that is the least that they should expect of us, not the most that they should expect of us. i am ready to roll up my sleeves over the next several weeks and months. i know the people in both parties are ready to do that as well, and we will keep you updated on the progress that we are making on these debt limit talks over the next several days. thank you. >> i was your meeting with mrs. nancy pelosi? >> it was good. >> we will hear from the house gop about the unemployment numbers in just a moment here on c-span. earlier today, majority leader eric cantor canceled the week of the 18th, the district work
time, to come back and consider a balanced budget amendment to the u.s. constitution. andrew taylor of the associated press is joining us. why are they pursuing this balanced budget amendment, and how much support does it have? >> well, it is kind of a bedrock principle for a lot of republicans, particularly conservatives. ek. they're doing it that we for starters, they need something to do. cantor told the recess because it would look bad for members to be out of town while this big budget debt crisis is going on, and they may actually need to be in town to deal with that a little bit. >> how would a constitutional amendment like this result republicans' concerns over spending and a proposed increase in the debt ceiling? >> i do not necessarily know that it would. there was a proposal of their by some conservatives who say there
will only vote to increase the debt ceiling if there is immediate large spending cuts and sort of a longer-term budget cap. and then, having a balanced budget requirement in place. now, their leaders are not that thrilled about that idea, because to get a balanced budget amendment passed requires a two- thirds votes in both the house and senate. there is no sign that democrats are willing to sign on. but it is a good symbolic vote for republicans, and it will allow them to show their core supporters that they're serious about the budget. >> will some of the majority leader's consideration in bringing the house back on the 18th to be in place to deal with a debt or debt as the legislation that might come up that we? >> yes, i mean, i think they want to be here just in case there is something for them to vote on, or more likely, to discuss among themselves.
but also, i mean, it is -- it would simply look bad for them to be on vacation, whether they want to call it a district work period or not, it is a vacation. the president warequested that e senate stay in this past week, and republicans in the senate made a big to-do about requiring the senate to be in as well to talk about the budget. >> negotiators expect to return to the white house on sunday. what do you anticipate out of that meeting? >> it is difficult to say, but that meeting may provide a census -- a sense as to whether or not it is possible to get these sort of larger bargains that are so heavily discussed in the media yesterday, a larger part in of save $4 trillion over a decade as opposed to what the group led by joe biden looked
at, which was in the over $2 trillion. after that meeting, i think people will probably be willing to speculate as to whether or not the sort of grand bargain, as we have labeled it, is possible. >> injured teller from the ap, thank you for the update. -- andrew taylor. earlier, the labor department announced that the unemployment rate rose 0.1%, from 91% >> to 9.2 is an for june. the economy adding 18,000 jobs. we showed you the comments from the president this morning. houser robert and also spoke to reporters is it that much of the blame falls on the obama administration. they also said the report further their resolve not to include higher taxes as part of the debt talks. hear the republican comments from earlier today.
>> after hearing the jobs report, i am sure the american people are still asking the question, where are the jobs? excessive regulations and are overwhelming debt continue to hold that job-creatures around our country. tax hikes on families and job- creators with all only make things worse. to help our economy get back on track, the house has passed several bills that would remove government barriers to private sector job growth. we're going to vote on two more bills in the weeks to come, and we hope the senate will take those bills up. we also need to stop washington from spending money that it does not have. we need serious reforms that restrain future spending. you have heard me say it before, a debt limit increase that raises taxes or fails to make serious spending cuts will not pass the house. we hope our democrat counterparts will join us and
seize this opportunity to do something good for our economy, and frankly, for our future and to help get americans back to work. >> good morning. you know, there is a lot of talk about progress that we're having and hope to have around these negotiations at the white house. i know a lot of questions were asked about, why did the biden talks end? if you look at the jobs report and the results of current policies and where we are in this economy, that is why the biden talks had to end, because the discussion in those stocks turned to the other side insisting that we raise taxes. now it just does not make sense for americans to suffer under higher taxes in an economy like this. and as the speaker said, there's no way that the house of representatives will support a tax increase.
>> good morning. a city of history. a lot of history is being made. unfortunately, it is the unacceptable history to this country. today marks 800 days since the senate even plan the budget, passed a budget. if you look to the numbers today, unacceptable. as a small business owner, this started when he was 20 years old. you look at the country today, and i wonder if i would have made as a decision today if i was 20 years old. this is a time to change. the policies of this administration have to change. the policies of this democratic- controlled senate -- you have nine bills that have passed the house, estimated at more than millions of jobs. we're talking 15,000 in the last month. america deserves better, and we deserve a change to go forward. this is not a time to talk about raising taxes.
it is time to talk about reforming taxes, lowering them, creating an incentive for people want to invest in this country again. not only do we have the jobs number, you have in the last 12 months the lowest number of start-ups in a decade. i hope the president reads these numbers, looks at what he said in 2009, that he would look to the future of the next three years of work jobs would be. his policies have failed. it is time for a change, and their rhetoric of where he is going on the debt limit needs to change as well. >> well, another month and another disappointing jobs report. 29 straight months of 8% plus unemployment when the president told us when we pass the stimulus plan, we would never have an upper limit above the
present. the president always tells us he inherited a bad situation. i can see the point, but he has made it worse. and after two and a half years, it is time for him to dig responsibility and to answer the question, where are the jobs? the president's stimulus programs, tax increases, and class warfare rhetoric created jobs in america, we would be the most highly employed society in the history of civilization. clearly, we are not. house republicans have passed jobs bill after a jobs bill after jobs bill that would help create the confidence necessary for job-creator hours to create jobs, and yet, they have languished in the united states senate, a body that is very good at meeting, a body not so good at acting. house republicans plan for america's job-creators is all about ending the era of the trillion dollar deficit.
it is all about making the tax code more fair, flatter, and simpler. killing off the job-killing regulations and ensuring that we can have american energy made in america, for americans. >> this administration has this economy in an ideological had locked, and the economy is begging for mercy. 9.2% unemployment based on 29 months of scud -- months of consecutive failure is completely and taxable. what has got to happen is the white house has to reflect on its failure, as technology it's a failure, and ultimately say, look, there has to be a better way forward. the better path way forward is the nine bills that the house passed. the better way forward is to seriously take up a budget. the better way forward is to end the nonsense conversations about raising taxes on american
jobs-creators. >> welcome the jobs numbers that were given this morning punctuate exactly the lack of focus by this administration on tralee giving america what it needs. when i go home on the weekends and i talk to those job- creators, what they are suffering from is this lack of focus. if you look at several of these bills that are up here, their energy bills. in as they like south dakota where it is a long ways to get anywhere, energy is extremely important. we have pushed these bills, recognizing the fact that job- creators need to have affordable energy. they have to be about utilize low-cost to put people back to work. and they need the certainty that these bills would deliver and provide jobs to americans as we do it. they have gone to the senate and have done nothing. this administration, this president, is still defending nfl stimulus package while the talks are raising taxes. you talk to anybody who has common sense, anybody is run the business before, the recognize
the fact that you cannot raise taxes in a time of uncertainty, because it takes more money out of your pocket that you need to got there and reinvest in your business and put people back to work. our job-creator is absolutely need to know that they have a certainty going forward that we are not going to raise their taxes. we are going to give them freedom from some of the burdensome regulations that this administration has given them, and we're going to give them the ability and tools to put people back to work. >> the house to continues to build on its record of job creation, while the senate continues to do nothing. late last month we passed the jobs and energy permitting act, the bill designed to help unleash american energy creation of the purpose of the bill, energy security and job creation. 54,000 jobs would be created by h.r. 21. 54,000 jobs. as much as 1 million -- 1 billion barrels of oil per day could be accessed. that is enough oil to replace
our imports from saudi arabia. 54,000 jobs, and yet, the senate does nothing. people continue to talk to everyone at the meetings that have had about the on that high gas prices are doing to their families, what is costing their businesses, and how this economy technician is content -- continuing to prevent the for hiring new people. it is time to this country start drilling for american energy and stop drilling the american economy. >> good morning. one of those bills of this holding of job creation on the regulatory side is h.r. 872. it fixes a bad court decision. without 872, businesses and municipalities will be crippled with unnecessary red tape and higher costs that provide no additional health or benefits. these are higher costs equal less jobs.
additionally, epa will be overwhelmed with delicate permit applications from hundreds of thousands of farmers, public health officials, and even everyday citizens. but the unemployment rate at% and still going up, we cannot afford to make an already slow permitting process that stifles economic growth and job creation even slower. we were sent here to do the people's work, and our plan to restore jobs or restore confidence in the private sector to greatest jobs in the those investments. as a freshman congressman, it has been extremely frustrating to me, and we have a plan for jobs that the best job creating bills. we passed hr 872, passed a budget, and we have won the pipeline that we sent to the senate. the senate failed to act of the senate needs to do is work to restore the confidence and make those investments and get the economy going and get people back to work. thank you.
>> how does this jobs report changed the equation of getting it debt deal done? does that add to the agency or does it make it more difficult to get people on board for an agreement? >> i think this situation we face is pretty urgent. matter of fact, i would describe it as dire. we have three really big problems but we have a spending problem. we have a debt problem. and we have the jobs problem. that is why, i believe, that it is a important for us to fundamentally fix our spending problem and our debt problem and to help get our economy moving again. >> when you talk about what is going to happen on sunday, do you anticipate coming back and sang we have the framework for something that you can present to your conference and democrats can present? what is the way forward from sunday afternoon? >> there is no agreement in private or in public, and as the president said yesterday, we're this far apart. it is not like there is some
eminent deal about to happen. there are serious disagreements about how to deal with this very serious problem. >> there have been talks of ideas of a package of $4 trillion, a $2.5 trolling package, or $1 trillion. what you think the goal should be when we're coming so close to the august 2 deadline? >> all to this process, i have wanted to do what i would describe as a big deal. that would fundamentally resolved are spending problem and debt problem in the near to medium term. but, at the end of the day, we have got to have a bill that we can pass through the house and the senate. this is a rubix cube we have not worked out. >> you see the pending free trade agreement. do expect the administration will send out the trade deals
in a package with the trade adjustment assistance? >> i have made it clear to the president and the white house that it should move on its own. we expect to move for double- move four separate bills in the house, a backup. our advice. >> will you combine them after with incentives? >> no decision. >> the constitution allows the house to make the first move on procreation and taxes. so if there is no deal, how about moving forward a plan d, your own plan, sending it over to the senate? >> very nice. very wise of you. [laughter] it is an option. [laughter] we appreciate your advice. how about a little more help, do you want to come up here? >> if you take the money,
democrats would have your problem with this. what can you offer them that would sweeten the deal that would allow them to vote for is something that would make it very difficult? >> devaney ideas to make and pass them on. >> [unintelligible] >> we have got a serious challenge facing the country. in addition to the three challenges in allied, where up against the debt limit. well something that we can go past august 2, i frankly thing it puts us in an awful lot of jeopardy. it puts our economy in jeopardy, risking even more jobs. i believe it is important to come to agreement, but it has to be an agreement that really does fundamentally change our spending and our debt situation. >> given how far apart you describe yourself as being, what
you expect to come out of the meeting on sunday? >> i do not know. conversations are continuing. in all honesty, i do not think things have narrowed. i do nothing this problem has narrowed at all in the last several days. thank you. >> house republican leaders from earlier today. house democratic leader nancy pelosi met with president obama this morning to discuss the ongoing debt and deficit reduction talks. afterwards, she stuck with capitol hill reporters at her weekly legislative briefing about the status of those negotiations and what can be done to stimulate the economy and a job creation. this is about 15 minutes.
>> good morning. de 185 of the republican majority in congress and we still have not seen one jobs bill coming to the floor. this is obviously reflected in the jobs number this morning. we have put probably, i do not know, 20 java initiatives on the floor, and the republicans have rejected every one of them. 10, 10 votes on job creation measures, and they voted no each time, some of those on more than one occasion to that is really unfortunate. i am pleased that the president talked about infrastructure this morning. this is something that, starting with the recovery package two and a half years ago, that democrats have been pushing. more needs to be done. the president referenced some bipartisan legislation to that end. i hope that our republican colleagues will consider that,
because people are crying out there, literally crying out there for jobs. i also want to point to some of the austerity measures that are real or imagined that it come from this -- are we calling it a grand bargain, perhaps a grand bargain, the debt talks, and that we cannot do harm with that. whatever cuts we need to make, we have to do so in a way that does not harm our economic growth. you see with some of the austerity measures they have already done in the layoff of public employees across the country, that will only get worse. if we continue down a path that is insensitive to the impact and costs shifting to the states in order to reduce the federal budget. so whether it is authorizing job
creation, especially through infrastructure and and for a structure banks. whether it is how we budget and are sensitive to job creation. growth, we all agree, is essential to bring in revenue to the treasury. where do we stand on all of this? as you know, we had a meeting at the white house yesterday. bipartisan, bicameral. we have had talks since then about some level of optimism that emerged from that meeting, to enable us to schedule a meeting on sunday late in the day to see where we are on something that would have the elements of a grand bargain. i wish we could be thinking about a grand vision, but whatever you want to call it, how we go forward to not harm the economy, to reduce the deficit, to create jobs, to
educate our children and to have a decent retirement for our seniors. this morning, i had the privilege of meeting with the president and of the vice president on this subject so that we have a clear understanding, as the president has met with all of the leaders, a clear understanding of what our terms of how we go forward are, and some of this will come forward on sunday evening. but the questions i have relayed to the baseline, the length of time, the fire walls, some of the technicalities of the discussion, so that we're not changing the rules in the middle of the discussion. with that, i did came -- my apologies for running even later. from the usual lively discussion in our caucus where our members were a very definite, let me say, their enthusiasm was such
that many of them stayed around after votes to participate in this caucus. almost unheard of. but they did on friday afternoon. and this firm is ever on what i have been saying, which is we want to, of course, reduce the deficit as we grow the economy. we're not going to reduce the deficit or subsidized tax cuts for the rich on the backs of america's seniors and working families. no benefit cuts in medicare and social security. they're serious concerns also about what is happening with medicaid as well. although i think that talking it through and people understanding more about what the possibilities are, it has been constructive. i am is still optimistic that we
can find a place where we can come together? i do not like to have a situation where we are saying, well, you need our votes, so you better have this in the bill. no. this is a big deal. this is 10 years. it is a 10-year deal. and we want to work together and have something that has bipartisanship, that has balance, that has consensus broader than enough democratic votes to the sending over the top that most people did not want to vote for. it has to be receptive of our values, because 10 years in the budget makes a very serious imprint on the future. decisions that will be made in the next few days up until august 2 will determine what the future well look like, depending on decisions that we make. about taking it to a higher plane of the dignity of the retirement of our seniors, the opportunity of jobs for working
families, the education of our children as we reduce the deficit. >> there was a lively discussion in the caucus room. what are you hearing from your members when you talk about preserving these values with these entitlement programs, but making alterations to than that may be part of a grand bargain? our members drawing a line in the sand and saying that this is a chain? >> no, can the -- cutting benefits is exactly that, cutting benefits. there many initiatives that we try to affect in the affordable health care bill. whether it was the jewel eligibles, not to get too technical about it, but giving the secretary of the ability to negotiate for lower prices for pharmaceuticals. it is a cost-savings. it is a cost-savings to
medicare. if that were to be part of a global grand plan, we want assurances that that money would be poured back into medicare, not to subsidize a tax cut for the wealthiest person in america and to say we are reducing the deficit. it is that kind of thing. i think members can make distinctions, obviously, but by and large, we do not want anybody to think that because we think from lisagor companies got off easily in the health-care bill, that is an opening of the door of weakening medicare. no, it is opening the door of strengthening medicare. >> just to follow on that, how much resistance, say some of your progressives, did you get in the caucus just for us during the words cut to medicare? >> i never uttered those words. [laughter]
you forgot the no cuts to medicare benefits. no, our caucus is diverse in many respects. philosophically, geographically, a generational, gender-wise, and the rest. when i spoke to some of you yesterday, i said that when i went to the table yesterday morning at the white house, i said i come here in a very special way, because i represent a caucus where 100 members are either women or minority. of that 100, over half of those are women. that is more than 50% of our caucus. i know firsthand the impact of changes in any of these initiatives to committees, to individuals, to people who depend on social security and medicare and medicaid. when men come overwhelmingly, depend on social security, and
they live longer. when men are also caregivers within their own families and health providers across the board. so they know the impact of this, and our members are men, women, minority or not, are close to their constituents. we are the retailers of this operation. we are right there on the front line. so when somebody talks about something, we want to know the ramifications of it. they can see it's, and we want to make sure that people making policy decisions understand how that translates. it is a very informed, intellectually and by personal experience, caucus. high tension wires go up when you talk about making changes, unless you can justify what the purpose of this it is. for example, if you talk about the pharmaceutical, if the purpose is to strengthen medicare, let's make sure that money goes to medicare, not to
deficit-reduction. strengthening medicare and social security has a pause of it -- positive impact on the fiscal soundness of our country. but it is not in the accounting of, we've got this pharmaceutical money, so we will use that to offset tax cuts at the high end and say we're reducing the deficit. i have time for just about two more. to make every minute count the train now and 6:00 p.m. on sunday. >> this morning, republicans were out here talking about the nine bills that have passed through the house, sent over to the senate. you talk about these 10 bills that democrats brought forward that have had no action on the floor. today was of the president in the rose garden calling for action on infrastructure, spending middle-class tax cuts, trade agreements, all these different things. i guess people want to know, this idea that you can create jobs immediately, asap, is it
gone because there is a broken promise on the hill or why hasn't the congress sent any of these bills to the president? >> you will have to ask the majority of part that -- the majority party about that because they control the floor and the legislation. but i would say that there are bills we could pass immediately that would give confidence. i have spoken to many captains of industry -- and as the stern still apply? cc's, ok. many have told me it will create jobs when they have customers. if people are buying their product, there will create jobs. so when you fire a policeman, a firefighter, a teacher, and a public employee because of austerity programs, you're not only hurting the city of your neighborhoods, the education of your children, etc., you are reducing the number of consumers.
you are reducing the number of consumers. so we have to understand, again, the impact of all of these actions. and that is why all this slash and burn, take no prisoners, cut, cut, cut in order to reduce the deficit does just the opposite because it lowers revenue coming into the treasury. the president made some suggestions that are good there. i myself would reject the patent bill because i do not think it is about all entrepreneurs, but that is another press conference. i think it was the wrong bill. this six months into majority. how many bill signings have you witnessed at the white house? think back two years. how many bill signings, celebratory bill signings, did you attended the white house? it is something quite different. not that this is not very useful
in terms of 6:00 p.m. on sunday, but i have some internal work to do. >> one more question. >> do you believe that having the government move and a changing measures would represent -- [inaudible] second, did you hear anything at the white house yesterday from republicans on the idea of revenues? >> well, the speaker said -- you have told me, the press has told me that the speaker has said that there is a 50/50 chance that something could happen. i only heard that from you. i did not hear that from him. however, enough was said at the white house to set up another meeting on sunday. that is all i can say. i obviously cannot speak for the republicans, but we're having the next meeting.
first question was on cpi? cpi, you know, at our meeting, they spend a lot of time talking about the 14th amendment. i said, you know what, why are we talking about something that is not going to happen? i have no idea if this is going to happen. if it does, if it were to be something that would be put on the table, it would have to be something that would be put on the table, state if it is to address social security, where the money went to social security. cpi money, a change in that money would go to the general fund. this money would have to go to the trust fund. if its purpose is to strengthen social security. use it as the excuse. the gang of six have the best i have no idea what is public about the gang of six or not. is it all public? so you know -- is now. [laughter]
i have been told -- [laughter] ] and that is true. is the fact that i have been told that in the gang of six plan, what they consider cpi change, they talk about phase-in and protection for the poor. so those kinds of things, production for the poor, phase- in funds going directly to the social security trust fund, not sitting in the general fund, some things like that. but again, we're discussing things that may or may not happen. let's see what happens on sunday and deal with what emerges there. there is concern in my caucus about what would happen with the cpi, so i think that it is a benefit cut. others do not. but, again, this falls into both categories -- into the category
of hypothetical at the present time. one reason i cannot say any more is at the nano anymore. we have not seen it. the 30 run devil is in the dirty rotten details. we have not seen what that is. when we see it, weakens the better to it. thank you all very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> house democratic caucus chairman told reporters he hopes the deficit and debt reduction talks over the weekend will be productive but that a final deal should not cut social security and medicare benefits. he was joined by the caucus vice chair. their comments are 10 minutes. >> i know that this figure had -- the leader -- i continue to call is bigger, had a press conference. we just concluded our caucus,
and suffice it to say, that our caucus remains united in its ongoing concern of the preservation of medicare and social security. and was very clear, and we directed our leaders to understand and have carried that message throughout these negotiations. it is our sincere hope, of course, that the leadership on the other side comes to their senses. far too many people back home are concerned about how these ongoing discussions and this flirtation with the debt limit impacts them personally, including their mortgages, their pensions, and there 401k's. and they have seen this story before. so it is our sincere hope that
these meetings over the weekend and on sunday are productive, and there is a resolution that people are able to come to. but we're very clear that that resolution in no shape, manner, or form from the perspective of our caucus is going to impact the benefits of medicare and social security. >> mr. chairman, just to reemphasize, one, it was impressive to see the number of members who did not take the first flight home the way we typically do it to attend this meeting to get the latest word from the leader on where these discussions and stood. it was overwhelming. this support for the position the leader has articulated to the president and publicly that social security, which has done
nothing to contribute one penny to these deficits and a to the national debt, should not be used to pay for reckless spending that led to these massive deficits. medicare, medicaid, same thing. tremendous support for where the leader says she continues to articulate to the present and we should go. i will say this, it does seem now with this latest report on employment, and economy continuing to struggle to create jobs, for closures still running a high pace, and with more and more economists who are on the conservative side of the republican side, say, what are these crazies doing putting the full faith and credit of the united states on the line and the mortgage interest rates of so many american families on the
line by putting at risk a vote that republicans, over the years, including the seventh- time senator george bush, were willing to take so that we would not default on our payments on our debts. it seems now that, more and more, you have to ask the question, are republicans just in in denial? are they not willing to face the facts before us, that even conservative commentators are now coming around to say, you guys were serious that you're willing to go ahead and play russian roulette all the way and pulled the trigger on the economy and the american people. so i am hoping, we're hoping, and clearly, the caucus said to the leader, sent a message to the president that we're hoping that this sunday afternoon or evening discussions lead to something, because this is becoming a little too scary the way the republicans are willing to bring america down to its knees. >> seven months, we're into the seventh month and not one jobs bill. yet, everybody knows that --
this was pointed out in our caucus today, that we can reduce the deficit by 30% just by having unemployment go from 9% to 7%. we get the politics of this and how someone like to see that number say hi. but, for god's sake, for the sake of the nation, and for the sake of people's 401k's, for their mortgages, for their pensions, this makes no sense at all. it is no longer a matter of playing chicken between democrats and republicans over this policy issue. it is a matter of doing this to the american people, and this is all too familiar azine for americans were they have seen this picture before in 2008 and what happens. with that, we will take a few questions, and that we have to catch a plane as well.
>> thank you. [laughter] >> regarding the jobs numbers today, duty the fact that the economy seems to be selling a bit in the recovery might halt serb democrats perceptions of how many kids are needed? >> that makes absolutely no sense. where all these jobs coming from the private sector? with all this money that the private sector has, we keep hearing from the other side, we're going to cut our way to prosperity how has that helped this economy. how has it helped unemployment? we see what is going on in our states already with people being laid off and cut. how have those jobs numbers increased because of the? the more we have tightened our belts in a number of areas, where have the jobs come from? you cannot cut your way to prosperity. >> the speaker said he felt this morning there was walking distance between where he is and
where the president is. what did the democratic leaders say? i almost called her speaker. >> we think it is ok for you to call her speaker. the leader said she was a very firm about the notion and the commitment of this caucus to medicare and social security. and it may be. in fact, i do not doubt that the speaker boehner, we have long stated, as we have seen this show before, we do not think in our caucus that they are capable of delivering the time of day in a watch factory. we recently saw that on a cr bill. but more instructive is what happened in 2008 with their own president and with a commitment to deliver votes that never
materialized, and it was a far different crowd then, i might add. >> there is an interesting twist developing here on in this play. will republicans be able to do what they are supposed to do in the house of representatives as the majority? that is, deliver the votes to do what they're supposed to do, given that they were given control of the house. and as we continue to proceed down this path, the more it seems that the speaker is telegraphing that he does not have the votes and that he is going to need the votes of the democrats in the minority to deliver on what he wants to do. that is where i think the leader has been very strong in saying, please do not expect that democrats will deliver votes to the majority so it can to its
responsibility of running the house, unless it recognizes the priorities that have been staked out by house democrats, and that is to strengthen social security, medicare, and medicaid, not to cut them because i do not expect that democrats will support balancing a budget on the backs of seniors and children and the disabled. >> there is a level of frustration, and you're talking about a democratic president. why does the democratic caucus insisted the democratic president not lower benefits for social security and medicare beneficiaries? >> i do not think that is necessarily the president's in 10. let's be clear about that. -- i do not think that is the president's intent. not been privy to all the discussions, you have to take these in the context in which they are presented. in terms of a larger plan, a plan that in no shape or form
with intact -- what impact social security or medicare benefits. you know, in a context in which the other side is offering nothing and can not deliver any votes and feels that cutting the red to the bottom or letting the nation default is fine. they have got to hear from their constituents. our caucus always just wants to make it clear to everyone, including our constituents, where we stand with respect to social security and medicare. >> i want to add something here. the president has been very clear. he is willing to put everything on the table. and i think he is right. everything must be on the table, including vital programs like medicare, social security, medicaid, and the rest. but what we're saying is be transparent and show why you want to give something on the table.
the president was clear. you want to do something with social security, it is to strengthen social security, not to use it to cover deficits caused by something other than social security. our message is not so much to the president. it is to republicans who have made it very clear through their vote to end medicare that they want to use medicare to cover the deficits. they have introduced legislation, the republican leadership, therapy sessions -- through pete sessions. and there's the privatisation bill by pete sessions on social security, were there would take the money set up social security and make it more difficult for today's seniors. there have also shown that they want to make deep cuts into medicaid, which two-thirds of the money goes to seniors, by trying to block grant it. the message that we're sending to our colleagues on the republican side is that this is where house democrats have said they stand. we believe the president is
right in saying that everyone has to hang their egos at the door and this is everything at the negotiating table. most of us believe that at the end of the day, we will keep on the table those things that drove these deficits and not put the burden on seniors and disabled and the children in this country to pay for the deficits caused principally by the bush tax cuts and two unpaid for wars in iraq and afghanistan. >> thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> think california privilege we are to serve here and to have the most interesting legal issues of our times come to this court. >> today marks the 30th anniversary president reagan's premonition of sandra day o'connor to service the first woman supreme court justice. watch her 140 appearances, including historic oral arguments on line the disease than video library. it is washington, your way.
>> this weekend on "book tv," is a latino but the ok corral wrong? hear a different story. in the trial of 1000 years, charles hill looks at the long war of islam is an to the to the international state system. also, former mexican foreign minister talks about the challenges facing our southern neighbor. look for the complete "book tv" schedule at the website, and signed up for alerts, a week and schedules in your inbox. this weekend on american history tv all in c-span, an early american history professor of first encounters between native americans, europeans, and africans in the new world. a harvard university professor on the role of african-american soldiers during the civil war. and the childhood in in an
internment camp in idaho and how his art examines issues of ethnicity, race, and the japanese-american experience. get the complete weekend schedule at c-span.org/history. >> space shuttle atlantis lifted off at approximately 11 mccourt 29 eastern on the final flight of the 30-year shuttle program. a 12-day mission to the international space station. following the take off, nasa officials, including the launch director, briefed reporters on the final mission. this is 50 minutes. >> good afternoon, everyone. we had the shuttle launch before record crowds. i believe that we had 1530 five news media in attendance, and it looks like we crammed as many of
you in the room as we possibly could. thank you very much for coming. we would like to begin things by introducing the members of our panel, and then we will have opening comments. we will be happy to take questions to to my left is an asset is as yet administrator for space operations. >> good afternoon. >> bob, kennedy space center director. like moses, space shuttle program launch integration manager and the chairman of the free lunch management team. and the space shuttle launch director. >> good afternoon. >> thank you. what a truly awesome day today. we got to witness something really, really special and something really amazing. he may think that, sometimes i talk about the hardware, but i am talking about the teams and the people that supporting the launch that just occurred what you saw is the finest launch
team and shuttle preparation teams in the world got is a vehicle ready to go fly. you got to see the teams perform everything we have asked them to perform over these years. the vehicle had a tremendous launch. the teams worked flawlessly, even the last minute hold at 31 seconds, there were true that with tremendous professionalism and got this launch off today. congratulations to the ksc team. i cannot see why enough for everything you have done for us. you have done everything superbly and beyond my highest expectations. thank you to the team. the jsc team and iss team still has to get busy. the docking will be on sunday. it is a busy mission. you'll see that activity on orbit that we're going to go through. we're going to try to extend the mission an extra day. we will work that as things go on. i urge you to follow the mission and watch what is going on with iss and really take in and spend
extra time to understand the research into the activities happening on iss. then we look forward to a landing here at the ksc. still a lot of work in front of us, but what an awesome and a great start to the mission today. thank you. i look forward to questions later. >> thank you. first, i want to thank bill for the leadership is provided human space flight from nasa headquarters. he's done an outstanding job. john shannon is not here today, but i cannot think of the finer program manager for the shuttle program, to see as did this last orbit. last, i want to thank the two mikes here. they did it truly excellent job in leading the team did this last launch. a god and died a couple times, but we found our way through it. -- it got dicey in the lifetimes, but we found our way through. it was a spectacular launch. the only a week -- the only way
it would have been better if i found a way to store away. but that in a rapid or more to share with you when i shared with the launch team. bill kind of said it. words cannot express the gratitude i have for this team and the pride that i have in them. they're truly the most professional, the best, most outstanding technicians and engineers anywhere. and we owe them a great debt of thanks. they have done a truly outstanding job in service to our country, and they have provided us with one heck of a ride for the last 30 years on the united states shuttle program. they really need recognition. we're going to be going through tough time. change is hard. we will have more folks walking out the door in a few weeks. they were and are performing their jobs absolutely flawlessly, right up to the end. that says a lot for them and speaks to their professionalism.
change is to the board, but you cannot do something else, you cannot do something better unless to go through change. all this talk about, you know, nasa is adrift in does not have a plan -- we do have a plan. we had the commercial crew program here at kennedy, supported by the johnson space center. we have folks under contract trying to build a vehicle that will take americans into space, supporting our international space station. that is still up there until at least 2020 with the americans on board, a human space flight program. yes, we will have to rely on russian rockets for a while, but we're implementing those plans to get a commercial u.s. capability to get our folks there. if we have been working very hard on a heavy lift program that will allow us to again explore beyond our home planet. you see a shuttle structure on pad a, but pad b is in a lot better shape than that shuttle
structure. what you do not see is what is inside. all new fiber optics, new digital control systems, a new lighting protection system that helps clear the shuttle for the lightning strikes that we have had, a state of the art. so a lot of progress is being made to prepare for this multi- user capability had ksc, where we can have a heavy lift program that allows us to explore and commercial programs also. we announced orien. that hardware starts arriving later this year for the first test article. soon will have an announcement on the architecture of the rocket to go along with that. so we're making progress, doing all we need to do to move forward. the shuttle program has been truly phenomenal, and i take great pride in this team and thank them. we still have a lot to do before it is over. they will be doing a lot of work on orbit, and then we will
bring home state, and i look forward to them landing and shaking their hands after a great mission. thank you for your support. we're going to get through this, and we are going to do well. also launched today. >> thank you. after years of training, they tell me to do things in the right order. but i will start my remarks by telling you that mike says he has the best launch team in the world, and that includes the team in houston. they're truly the best. it is an honor and privilege to serve ready. the judgment and leadership the show today was major. let me get back on track it started yesterday. i don't know what time, avoids taking a nap and they said there was a lightning strike on the pad. we knew we were good to go, press on with the count.
we had to do someday reduce. that goes back to 2.5 years ago when i first started and we had a lightning strike about that same time frame. two years before that we had a lightning strike that had asked the late -- had us delayed by two days. the decision to go tank today in face of that weather forecast, with the odds we had against us all day and for the weekend i thought was unbelievable leadership to take us down at path and let us try today, and it really did pay off. a couple of technical issues, a pump acting up a little bit, and at 31 seconds -- it was a great example of how well the team had prepared ahead of time. we ended up coming right down to the wire.
the range weather, and right in there and was pretty good all day long. we had the advantage of having the weather cretonne up there to slice of the clouds and find out how they were and look at where showers were popping up. when it came right down to it, we ended up right against the rain shower rule that says we do not want rainshowers within 20 nautical miles of the shuttle landing facility. on this day we had a few showers popping up in that circle, so at the time we were of no go at the site, but the landing was not until 35 minutes after launch. we talked about taking an exception be on what is printed in the rules to say we understand the situation a little better, because this situation is not one we wrote down ahead of time. the team did a very thorough evaluation. the team led by richard jones back in houston and our weather
recon aircraft and all the team that supports them did an amazing job, talking about what situations we were truly facing. we knew we had some showers that might pop up, but they would be limited in scope to only affect one end of the runway. we could be designated around our rain shower if it did pop up. we knew for calculations that we had an excess margin, even if we did happen to catch a rain shower at a bad time. really what made us go today was the radar maps, the forecast and observations by the pilot that showed there is really nothing developing down in the squadron that would blow up over the past. we knew we might have a tiny risk of a chance of a shower but we knew it would not be a thunderstorm, and that allowed us to be comparable to go little bit beyond the printed rule and take that exception at the end and go ahead and launch today.
i kept an eye on the radar map and there never was a shower that popped up in the circle, and it was a really good decision by the team today. i had no problem endorsing that one. on the way up till we got a delta pressure over delta prime, basically change in pressure. the cabin pressure dropped a tiny bit. we attribute that to cabin stretch. it just bends of a little bit of oxygen. the pressure was very stable after that, so no worries, but it did help the crew get a little more excitement on this last mission. they are doing a really good job. the doors are open now and we are looking forward to a great mission. as bill said, this is a very critical mission for station resupply. we are going to do or best to stretch out an extra day. this will posture the space
station to be done for the future. i think the shuttle program is ending exactly as it should. we build the international space station and we are stocking up for the future and ready to hand it off, and we finished really strong. we are not ready to look back or port. we are staying focused on the mission at hand. it is going to be jam packed and we are handing off to the team over in houston to get that executed. i will head over to mike and say i cannot express how proud i am to be sitting up here after a successful launch today. >> thanks for those opening remarks. on behalf of the shuttle launch team, the remarks were very nice. it made it sound like it was a tough decision. let me tell you how really came down. we met in my office an elliptical ring -- and flipped a coin. that is how we really make decisions.
[laughter] now that the program is over, we can divulge some of our secrets. we went over some strategy. we had a decent shot get. we have had worst predictions than that. we got lucky. that is the way to put it. from a launch perspective, our launch weather officer, cathy winters, did an excellent job. the forecast for the launch perspective was right on the money and we got that little bit of clearing that we needed. from my perspective it was pretty easy. richard jones, the flight director, it was a bit more challenging for him, and he worked his way through that and it was just an outstanding job. we got through all that and the tanking went fine. we had a level issue with the major pump that puts the liquid
oxygen into the external tank. it had a little bit of a chill down indicative of a very minor league and we opted to voluntarily switch to another poll before got into trouble with that one. -- with another pump. the locks guys did a great job. coming down to the count, i thought we were in the clear until 31 seconds, and we did not get one of the indicators there is back in a locked and we have procedures to verify that it was back. there was an of hydraulic pressure in the system that we were not concerned during the main engine ignition. i think we launched with 58 seconds left in the window this time, which is an eternity lately. that worked really well for us.
on behalf of the launch team and that thousands of people here, i am very proud that we finished a strong on the launch perspective as we did. the mission ahead of us, landing ahead of us, and then we will be able to look back and celebrate. today was a great day, and there is a party, so i hope you don't ask too many questions. >> before we take questions, i think it all know that a marine was flying the weather aircraft and instead of using technical meteorological terms, he put it in marine terms. he said it is a really, really big hole. >> will take questions. these gentlemen have been working since around midnight and their day is not done, so we do want to let them get out of here by to look like at the latest. we have about 30 minutes of questions.
to try to make sure everyone gets covered, please ask one question and a follow-up. please wait for the microphone. tell us your name and affiliation and to whom you are addressing your question. we will start in the front row. >> can you describe the mood after launch, in the launch control? did it take longer for people to file out, since it was the last one, or how was it different than after other launches? can you just describe what was going on there? >> it did take a while to leave the control room. we had photographer set up to take some pictures of the team, the entire team at once, individual or group pictures, what ever we chose to do. a lot of us walked around and shook everybody's hand. seemed like we did not want to leave. it was like the end of the party and you just do not want to go.
you just want to hang around a little longer and relish your friends and what we have accomplished. it was very special. lots of pass on the back today. >> just to follow up, you talked about the tiny technical problems you overcame. in the end, or you kind of glad that instead of a completely clean cloud, is it more sweet that you had to overcome these things and still launch? >> anytime we get to orbit safely is good buy me, so it was fine. it challenged the team a little bit at the end, but we practiced that scenario numerous times, so we are ready to go with it. in fact, we had written a special procedure because in some of the testing of the last month or so, we did not always get the retract indicator, so we
put together a little procedure. we put together figuring if we did that, we would never get that failure. of course, we got the failure, so we had it locked today. that was no big deal. >> a question about the rtls waiver. were you just making the calculation that we are not flying in again so the tile damage does not matter? >> that was not part of the consideration that it was the last mission. you are right, and rain showers will damage the tile. the rule is the damaging of the tile is taking energy at of the profile. the shuttle is coming in as a glider without engines.
we knew today bore the approach profiles with the wind, the head winds and crosswinds that we would see, that we would not have any energy problems. losing a little bit of energy by flying brainstorm would be okay in today's situation. like we were talking about free lunch, no single forecast is the same period a 70% no go one day is not the same as the different day, for different reasons. the rain shower rules are the same. we look at each won every time. that is one reason we have people making these rules and not just a computer boating red or green. that did not come into consideration today at all. >> you mentioned to some of the work being done on 39-b. when we do anticipate that work
is going to be completed? like missions are upcoming for that had, and what about 39-a? is that going to stay where it is for budget reasons customer >> we are preparing to be able to launch a heavy lived rocket with the goal of 2016. how things work out in the budget process, we will have to see. we want the pad to be ready to go. we will press ahead to have that ready as soon as we can for accommodating nasa rocket launches. 39-a does not have funding to move with it so we will put it in a caretaker status. there are scenarios where we need two big launch pads to support two big rockets to go do what we need to do. in the meantime, we will make sure it is not in such condition that we cannot bring it back up
and we need it. >> i does want to say congratulations and thank you to all of you. you are wearing a very elegant medallion. i wondered you could tell us about it. >> this is the flag and gave the launch team today. i just wanted to give them something they could take with them and remember the good times, so that what this is about. >> what is your reaction to the significant cuts to the proposed national budget by the house appropriations committee? >> it is too early to react to those cuts. we will get some discussions with the senate and eventually that will get worked into the nasa bill. i did not react to those. we understand what they mean and
tough environment and we will work with that and watch the process go through. we will be prepared to execute with what we get when we finally get an answer from congress. >> i would like the perspective of the whole panel, but in my view, there is no other place where you see the flight control and launch teams when they are on their game. there is nothing like that to see them perform. i would like you all to reflect on the fact that no matter what follow-on program you get, this animal is never going to exist again. this is the last time you'll see that kind of execution, and just your thoughts on that. >> we have grown into a very cohesive team. throughout the whole shuttle program, not just the flight control or launch team but of
the processing team, the designers of the missions. it is a very, very cohesive group. i am not sure we will never see it again. we have grown into a very, very good organization. it has taken years to do that, but that does not say it cannot be done again. in fact, it will be done again. it has to be done again. what we have learned in the shuttle program in part is how to work between centers. he split the work up. sir organizations are responsible for certain things. you respect that and go about your business and work together as a team. it seems very natural to me to work this way. i am sure it will happen again. there is no doubt in my mind. >> the control center is a leadership laboratory.
while we are not going to be turning out from that laboratory for a little bit, we have a whole batch of folks who will go out into the commercial industry and the nasa team and will go and push the team and take the skills that have now and help us move to our future goals. i feel good that we are going to take this team and go out there and save the world, so to speak. we will be able to rebuild the team when the time comes that we need that again. in the short term, i know exactly what you mean. it will be something missed, a chance to do that every day. >> you got this-from endeavour and discovery and the one from atlantis -- the sash.
did you say anything special to the team, realizing the finality of where we are at? >> it is almost like that planted to in the audience -- almost like they planted you in the audience. [laughter] what i said to the team today, there has been a tradition in american manned space flight that the launch director has been redone the astronauts are well on launch day was traditionally good luck and godspeed. the definition of godspeed that i like the best is "have a prosperous during." -- "have a prosperous durinjour"
>> i know you only get a few seconds to look at the actual asset. did it feel like it lasted longer or was there anything different as it was happening? >> it looked like it was lifting off in slow motion. it definitely hit slow motion for a good 10 seconds. it was very moving and very beautiful. >> it was special today. i remember standing there after the vehicle went into the cloud deck and you could still see the smoker and the main engine in the first stage. it seemed like it was growing and just hovering, slowly drifting north. the payload launch manager, i believe we put our arms around
each other and just said we will never see that again. it was a special moment. >> one more follow-up for bill. you mentioned the same measures that administrator boldin did in his reporting about the u.s. not pulling out of human spaceflight. there is a lot of thought in the public about that perception because of a lack of an iconic vehicle like the space shuttle. i wonder how you perceive the challenge to combat that prescription in the months and years ahead. >> one-piece we forget is that we have created this unbelievable facility in space, this 900,000 pound research facility in space. we have to maximize the way we talk about that and the way we use that facility. we have a chance to do unbelievable research in a facility we have never been able to do. this is a unique time in our lives to get that done, so we
need to do our level best to take advantage of that. when you talk about the flight teams, there is still a flight team that is managing 17 launches to that vehicle every year. they are juggling cargo and research manifest. we are looking at establishing a new nonprofit organization. we are still in space and still moving forward with the iss. it will seek a commercial group coming after next spring. we are ready to keep going and will springboard of what the shuttle has done and make the next 50 years as bright as the last 30 have been for the shuttle. >> you are the guys on this group who spend most time around the shuttle. it is a more highly technical question, but did you choke up? >> yes, most definitely.
>> yes. >> elaborate on why you personally choked up. your engineers and always just analyzing things at every stage. >> to be honest, i choked up at every launch. this one i choked up before launch, witches and a new -- an unusual thing for me. -- which is an unusual thing for it. i cannot see how everyone who sees this does not show up are just swell with pride. it does it to you every time. >> marsha smith. bob, you talked about the future of the task but not the bab. does it get an up live, or does it get bulldozed? >> there are folks who would shoot me if i thought about
doing anything other than refurbishing it. our plan is to refurbish it to make it a multi user space probe. we are partnering with space florida and commercial companies to try to bring commercial work here. we most definitely needed for the heavy lift rocket we are going to build, to support launches out of complex 39 that take us beyond earth. absolutely, we are going to continue to make it a viable part of the future. that includes some refurbishments. we are making the most of the downtime between programs. fortunately, we only needed one shuttle pad so we are able to get a jumpstart to start transitioning for the picture. we need a little bit of downtime in order to make the modifications and transition from one program to the next. that is what we are doing right now. >> i will not ask how much is
going to cost, but will the government have to bear all those costs, or will it be shared with the commercial sector? >> if the government is going to use it, they will have to pay to use it. >> it all inherited a vehicle that ultimately prove far more complicated and labor-intensive to work on. one of the goals the shuttle program did not meet was a low- cost feasibility and reliability. i wonder why you think it took 30 years for the shuttle program to get to the point where it would stand down and give perhaps another operator an opportunity to develop something that would meet one of those goals that the shuttle program was sold on. >> is that for me?
the shuttle program -- we could not have billed the space station without the space shuttle. it is a phenomenal achievement on orbit right now. i look back on what the shuttle has done in 30 years. the hubble space telescope, ulysses, galileo, the space probes. the show will open up space. when you look back on the makeup of the astronaut corps, and look at it today. look at the diversity within the astronaut corps. look at the multi nations that have blown into space on the space shuttle and what it has done. i do not think it ended early. i think it totally fulfilled what it was meant to do. did deliver on the costs that some people said? no, but did achieve something that was not achievable by any other country or any other vehicle? absolutely. i think it has done a phenomenal
job. >> de think that commercial companies will have an easier time developing vehicles that non astronauts can fly in with the simpler design? >> the shuttle was designed to carry large payloads to orbit and carry large crews to orbit and stay in orbit for a long time and service vehicles and space. the capsule is designed to go somewhere, drop somebody off, and come home. the capsule is lot easier to build. that is why we chose the mercury capsule. it was the best way to go back and forth, but they needed to do it quickly and cheaply, and the capsule was the simplest and easiest way to do that, and it still is. we have been going back and forth to the lowest orbit for 50 years now. we should be able to define --
not just to the international space station. boeing has a contract and there'll be other destinations. commercial space is not just the government contract to the space station. >> a lot of information will be tremendously bible to these programs that are emerging in coming forward. some things we understand about boundary layer transition on the vehicle, how it flies, those things are still important to capsules. how life supports and docking mechanisms work, all those things we have proven and refined throughout the shuttle years, we can hand those of to the commercial companies and they can move those in another direction. there was a lot learned from the shuttle program that is not immediately evident to you until you look behind the hardware and look at the physical understanding of how we fly in
space that have 100% application to this new activity we are heading off to. >> what is going to be a key moment up there, aside from getting the astronauts safely on the ground? what will be the main objective that you want to get done before you come home? >> first of all there is a lot of logistics activity, just moving cargo from the multipurpose logistics' module into the space station. this is the heaviest multipurpose logistics' model we have long, so it is packed full. also, the space station is getting pretty crowded. there are a lot of things that are stored that need to come back. this is a unique time to bring components back.
we also have a pump module that has failed on the downside of the space station. we would like to return that pump module to understand why it failed so we can improve the next generation. then we have another experiment, a revealing experiments that will sit on the outside of the station. we will be able to use the canadian robot to service and do a mock demonstration of servicing a satellite that was never meant to be serviced. it has an interface and we have designed unique tools for like we design for the hubble servicing mission. it will remove a panel and demonstrate good transfer between two tanks on board. it will take now from the space walk generation to show us what we can do in terms of robotic
activities on board the space station. >> thank you, gentleman, for today. i think it will be with us for the rest of our lives. i question -- my question is a follow-up for ted. as has been mentioned, in the past, present, and future it will be a working launch pad. are there plans to have any extra plans for that future in -- for that pat in the future? are there any special ceremonies up your sleeve that you can tell us about when the returns? >> i am working with the shuttle program to come up with some commemorative plaques to put in various places. we will have something to commemorate the history of those
pads as well as the landings. we have a couple of ceremonies coming up after landing, something special for the team right here participating in the landing, but we will have a big celebration. it will be at our visitor center and celebrate the entire shuttle program. it will be open receive easy access to all the retirees, the folks who have been a key part of this program for the last 30 years, so we can celebrate the significance of what the shuttle has accomplished. that will be on the 13th of august. >> it seems like the weather gods conspired today. i wonder if you could speak to the bigger picture of what the weather teams have met
throughout the course of the program. >> kathy is a spokesman for that team. we aren't talking about the beecher and looking ahead. it is amazing how much we need the daily forecast for every operation we do. we are moving hardware back and forth. there is cargo coming in. we need weather forecasting on a daily basis. we have a desert -- daily weather call where we tag up and see what is happening. it has built up an unbelievable capability. of explaining the other day, not long ago we had flight rules that talked about triggered lightning. some of our partners on the air force side had an event with triggered lightning. new rules came in place to talk
about the limits. we did not know what was really happening at altitude. in combination with the weather service, the air force, nasa, we used to have a rule that any attached camilla's cloud would mean no go -- attached cumulus cloud would mean no go. we learned it is about a 30 mile radius. we had a dedicated team focused on dedicated weather in certain areas of the country. you learn so much when you look at whether in one spot that closely. it is an unbelievable team and
we could not do what we do without them. >> i agree 100%. cathy winters is a spokesman for a large group of people. different things come into play on daily processing versus launch. different things come into play when we are talking about tropical systems. we work closely with the national hurricane center will have a tropical system threatening us. we have had criteria to roll the shuttle off the launch pad to protect it and we have done that in the past. barrett is a group of people who have been together for over 25 years and for the studies that have done, we have been able to relax our rules, but yet it's a perfectly safe. we are constantly challenging
the weather folks because we have an operation to perform, but we need to do it safely. it is a balance between those competing interests. the weather in central florida is a very interesting phenomenon. you saw it today. could have easily turned sour and we would not be talking to you right now. a little bit of luck never hurts. the relationship we have with the 45th and s m g and other folks that support them is just outstanding. >> will take one question here and then to others. >> writer at the last week we have seen harsh criticisms from some heavyweight nasa veterans. if nasa cannot convince some of
its own finest, how do you think nasa will move forward to convince the public that nasa is still an ad agency that knows what is doing and that it is worth doing? >> as it becomes clearer and we announce the specific design of the rockets we are building and how we are going to use it and why we chose that design, that is born to help tremendously in educating and in helping folks understand what we are doing and why we are doing it. >> also there is a piece of vet that we have a lot of detailed plans, we have been working quietly in house with technical teams in building a strong strategy of how we go forward. they captured a vision of nasa that was in the past, with a different set of teams. they have not had the privilege
of being brought in an understanding all the details that technical experts are working on it in a day-to-day basis. we will listen to their opinions and see what makes sense, see if we missed something. i grew up under those folks you mention. those are my teachers and mentors. i lived in houston with them and consider all of them truly my mentors. i think i incorporated everything that they bring to us in terms of concerns, but i think we owe them to show them technically but we have done and how we are prepared to address the issues they raise. i think they will come to an understanding of where we are heading. they may not particularly like it because they want to push and a further direction. they know what we are capable of and they want us to do even more. they are pushing us as hard as they can on the outside. it is healthy to have a good strong debate that we can keep pushing and trying to do more. this team is ready to execute
whatever the nation wants this team to do. they can go execute it. >> for bill orr might reject or mike -- for b ill or mike, i am wondering if either of you see this as the end of a golden era in space flight. see it as an end. it is a transition period unfortunately, sometimes with that we can multitask as a people, but sometimes we cannot multitask as well as we think we can. you feel like you are multitasking, but are you really as efficient as you were? and away, we had to quit
assembly to really get focused on the research phase and to get this activity started. we have a nice, nine-year window where it can really concentrate on research. that shows there is potentially an economic market and a commercial application for space that is not government driven. now it is not only individual governments pushing us into space, but now there is a real commercial pull toward space. that can really springboard us and move us in the directions. i don't see this as an end but a transition into another era. we are going to be building a heavy lift launch vehicle, the capsule we talked about that will allow us to get beyond lower orbits and push those boundaries to go out and explore new destinations. i did not see this as an end of the golden era.
i see it as a chance we can leverage of of what we have now and push in new directions. it is up to us to make sure we explain to the broader community why we are doing what we are doing and why we dedicated our lives to this. why we are doing all the activities we have done. we need to convey the excitement so they can get excited with us and move into this next phase. >> a lot of federal agencies have gone through the ends of peres of technically sophisticated programs and have worried about the loss and accuracy of the knowledge that extended back decades. they have gone through processes of formally document in that technology and knowledge. at the end of the shuttle era, i am wondering if you are concerned about preserving and being able to pass on the knowledge, the operational
knowledge that you bring to this table, and how you are doing it and whether you are concerned about it. >> we have a pretty extensive lessons learned program where we try to document exactly what we have done. we do it through video archives. we have a searchable database and all kinds of multimedia activities to try to capture the knowledge. another really effective way to transfer that knowledge is to move some of the people from one program to the next program, so they can take the actual lessons they have learned and apply themselves and then applied to the new programs. if you look at our history, you know a lot of the iss team came from the shuttle program. they took all the old hard lessons they learned in the short program that you are not going to read in a book or search in that database and they can apply them to the next application. as we did the new designs of the launchpad and new launch vehicles, we will try to capture
and new people who have experience in the shot a world into those areas so they can directly apply the skills and knowledge that learn to the new activities going forward. >> you are not concerned that you will have any actor feet or loss of knowledge? >> we need to watch out for that, but what i describe this the way we are going to try to prevent that. it is not need to say we have it well in hand, because it is a very difficult thing to do. we are trying our best with all the right experts to make sure we do it. time will tell how well we have done, but it is critical for us to try to make sure recapture it. it will not be easy for us to do. >> they would like to see mike's once again.
we will be replaying the launch and a special farewell tribute video, and then we will turn things back to mission control in houston. you can keep up with the entire mission at www.nasa.gove/shuttle. now we will roll video. thank you very much. >> here is a look at our prime- time schedule on c-span. starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern, remarks from president obama on unemployment numbers for june, which rose to 9.2%. then more about that with house republican leaders who spoke reporters about job creation, and why they feel unemployment is still too high. after that, house minority leader nancy pelosi discusses the ongoing debt and deficit reduction talks after her meeting this morning with
president obama. later, democratic caucus leaders previewed this week's meeting with president obama on raising the debt ceiling. >> this weekend on "book tv," is everything we know about the o.k. corral wrong? a different story about white earth, the holiday and the dalton gang. -- about why it irks w --yatt earp, doc holliday and the dalton gang. son of for book tv alerts, weekly schedules in your in box. >> who is really going to get fired up over nancy pelosi on the one hand or john boehner on the other? there is an incredibly narrow range of choice that we have in
elected officials. >> in the declaration of , nick gillespie takes on the problems of two- party system. that is sunday night on c-span's "q&a". >> the house today passed a $649 billion defense spending bill for fiscal year 2012. the vote was 336-87. members began debate on an energy debate. majority leader eric cantor announced the house would not be taking a scheduled break from work so that members can consider a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. this is one week earlier than originally scheduled. there will be back on monday. following the passage of the defense bill earlier today, the majority and minority leaders
held their colloquy and previewed the week ahead. >> i want to pursue what i presume is the reason for not having the recess that was originally scheduled. my presumption is that we are concerned about the impending arrival of the august 2 date on which america would be put in a position of defaulting on its obligations. i presume that's the reason that we want to make sure that we are here to work on that issue. am i correct on that? mr. cantor: the gentleman is correct. it is my hope we can have some deliberative processes and open discussions so that we can arrive at an appropriate conclusion of the challenges
surrounding the issue of the debt limit expiration. that is correct. i yield back. mr. hoye i thank the gentleman for that observation. i know the gentleman has said in the past that he believes it would be a very bad situation for our economy and for our country if we did not extend the debt limit. am i correct that the gentleman still shares that view? mr. cantor: the gentleman -- i'll say to the gentleman, mr. speaker, that i have said before thatmerica pays its bills. justike the american peopl are expected to pay the bills, to pay their bills at home and in their small and large businesses. but the fact is, i think that the american people are expecting us to live up to the promise that we are not going to let spending get out of control again. and sohe purpose of the
deliberations that are ongoing throughout this capitol, at the white house, etc., are focused and should be on making sure we change the system, making sure we accomplish the necessary cuts which would exceed the amount that would raise the debt limit as well as to signal to the american people that we have changed the system. that this -- that this kind of unbridled spending ceases an we begin to live within our means, get the fiscal house in order, so that we can focus on the overriding need for this country right now which is to create an environment where jobs return. another gentleman -- i know the gentleman has seen today's jobs report. disappointing is an understatement. i make the point again, as the gentleman knows, mr. speaker, he and i were at a meeting at the white house yesterday with the present in which i said again the import of our need to act anct responsibly and not, not to raise taxes on the
american people and the small businesses that we need so desperately to begin to create jobs again. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yiding. i'm pleased, as the gentleman knows, to hear that you want to stop the spiraling deficits that confnt our country. i will repeat again, because the gentleman keeps mentioning this and i have enough experience to know what's happened and in the 30 years i've been here, of course we've had some few years of the obama administration but we had mr. reagan's administration, mr. bush first administration, mr. bush second administration and we ran up over -- i want the gentleman, i know he knows this, over $6 trillion of deficit during that period of time. however, in the eight years that mr. clinton was president of the united states we had a 62 -- $62.9 billion surplus. now the gentleman makes the point that spending is out of
control. the fact is, as the gentleman clearly knows, that when you were in charge of the house and the presidency and the senate you increased spending by more than was increased during the clinton administration by a percentage on an annual basis. so that i'm glad to hear that your side now, without fail, talks about spending being out of control. as a matter of fact, i have a feeling if your side was spending five cents would you think that we would need to cut an additional five cents in revenues so that we could not pay the bills. because that's why we ran up $6 trillion in deficits. you did not pay for what you bought. i'm with those who strongly believe we ought to pay for what we buy. but i also believe that we ought not to put this country on the brink of financial chaos and bring us down in the eyes of the world because we don't extend
our debt. now very frankly i think we'll pay for what we buy. we call that taxes. whether it's defending america, paying our f.b.i., paying people who are researching cancer, heart, lung, diabetes issues, those are federal expeitures fowhich the american people pay through taxes. and very frankly if we're going to be responsible we make a very simple judgment. if we want to buy it, we ought to pay for it. that $6 trillion of deficit that was incurred during the presidencies and the president is the only person in america can stop spending. only one. you can't do, it i can't do it. we need 217 other votes in our house, over there they need at least 60 votes to do anything. the president can do it himself. ronald reagan never had a veto overridden of a bill that said
we spent too much money, george bush i never had a veto over overriden in which he see ared to a -- overriden in which he see are toad a bill saying we spent too much money and george bush ii never once had a veto overrid son that we spent money that he did not sanction. so i say to my friend, we did meet at the white house and the president of the united states, the leader of our party and i and mr. reid and mr. drbin all said yes, we need to get a handle on this spending. yes, we need to get a handle on the deficit. and, yes, we need to bring down the debt. and we need to come to the table together with everything on the table. and we need to pay for what we think we ought to buy and frankly we ought to ensure that the united states of america for the first time in history
doesn't pay its bills. and i tell my friend that we've had a lot of commentary over the last few days, people on wall street, people in busine, large, medium and small and i will tell you if the united states doesn't by august 2 agree to pay that which it owes, that which it has incurred, not what we're going to incur in the past, those debts we've incurred in the past, everybody in america is going to be hurt. everybody -- every economist that i've talked to says that interest rates are going to spike, stock markets are going to be at risk and millions people who have pension funds and who have interest in their pensions are going to be adversely affected. the housing market which is struggling is going to be hurt.
the economy that is struggle something going to be hurt. so i would hope that my friend and i will go to the white house on sunday where we'll sit with the president of the united states and we will be for a large deal that is referred to as a comprehensive solution s that we can in fact not in the short-te, not temporarily, but a long-term bring fiscal discipline to the operations of our country. our country needs that, i think the international community expects that of us and if don't do that, i tell my friend, i think we will not have fulfilled our oath of office. to protect anddefend the constitution of the united states and serve the general welfare of our country andur people. now, some in your party of
course have suggested there's no need to raise the debt. does the gentleman agree with that proposition? i'm not going to go through the quotes but as know one of your candidates forresident has indicated there's no need to worry out raising the debt. she serves in this body, as a matter of fact. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i'll respond to the gentleman as he knows, he and i have had plenty of discussions about this, so assume we're just on for show here that he wants me to say yes, i believe it would be a grave consequence if we did not reach the point at which we could arrive at a solution and put a bill forward that would permit an increase in the credit limit of this country with an associated cut in spending and move to get our fiscal house in order. and as the gentleman correctly pointed out, the reason why now we will not be in our districts the week of the 18th is to
ensure that we do get it right and that we recognize that the markets, the investors around the world are smarter than expecting us to just go and check the box to meet the date. at the end of the day what the markets and investors and more importantly the american people are looking for is that we act responsibly, that we begin to manage down the debt and deficit . that means trillions of dollars of cuts necessary because i think most americans are looking at washington in disbelief, that somehow we think there's not enough money coming into the federal government. i mean, just look at the jobs report today. i cannot fathom how anybody, how anyone thinks right now is a good time to raise taxes. who thinks that raising taxes on individuals and small businesses can help create jobs?
we are in a crisis. people in this country need to get back to work. let me just, mr. speaker, for the point of explanation, because the gentleman insists on going back decades to recount the past, and as the gentleman knows, i'm the first one to say that we came to this majority with some con trigs, that, no, -- con trigs, that, no, we weren't always acting in the fiscal health of this country and that's why we have taken the job at hand and act responsibly and passed a budget that actually put a plan in place to manage down the debt and deficit, unlike the other body, unlike this president. and that's why we come to the table right now, as we approach this debt ceiling vote with a well thought out, deliberative plan to get people back to work while we get the fiscal house in order. but let's just review some of the statistics, mr. speaker.
there have been 2 1/2 million jobs lost since this president took office. mr. hor: will the gentleman yield on that? mr. cantor: no, i will not. 13.9 million americans unemployed right now. gallon of gas is significantly higher, well into the $3.50, $3.60 a gallon in places in this country. up from $1.85 when this president took office. $14.3 trillion in current national debt. up from $10.6 trillion when this president took office. if you worked -- if you work that out, $$46,000 -- $46,042 debt per person up from $43,371 when this president took office. so you can go through line by line of how things have gotten worse for the american people. now, we can sit here and blame and point fings all day long. but i would suggest, mr. speaker, themerican people are
tired of the bickering, they want to see some solutions, they want to see us come together. that's exactly why we have altered the schedule, so we can begin to actually deliver on the promise. so i agree with the gentleman from maryland, the democratic whip, we've got a serious challenge ahead of us. we on this side of the aisle have been consistent in our efforts to meet that challenge in a responsible way, but i would underscore again, now is not the time to raise taxes, now is not the time to say that washington needs more money because that money comes off the hard work and backs of the american people. and i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding back. very interesting comments he makes, of course he leaves out some things. he tks about the jobs that were lost. those jobs were lost of course as this administration took
office. this administration has gained back two million of the eight million jobs that were lost during the economic program that my friend from virginia voted for the most part. eight million jobs were lost and the month that this administration took office in january, 780,000 jobs in one month were lost the last month of the bush administration. that's not very distant past but let me tell you, i heard the same rhetoric, you said it changed, i heard the same rhetoric in 1993, the same rhetoric when we adopted a program that we said would balance the budget, bring the economy back and create jobs. the same rhetoric,h, no you won't do it.
the program that you're going to adopt, none of which -- none of you voted for, you weren't here, i understand that, but the same rhetoric applied, you thought we were going to tank the economy, kill jobs, explode the deficit and have high unemployment. in fact, as my friend well knows, he didn't read those statistics because he thinks they're ancient history because you opposed that policy. but that poly created 22 million jobs. that's a 30 million-job difference between the bush administration that was the follow-on administration and the clinton administration. 30 million-job difference, i tell my friend, under the policies that you adopted and you supported in the 2000's. so i would hope that my friend's comments are correct, that you have decided to change. in point of fact we need cnge. and in point of fact the american public, which is
divided itself, but would like us to come together, i am hopeful that we do that and my friend and i have had the opportunity to talk about this. we d have significant differences but none of us can put something on the table and say, if you don't age i'm going to take the -- i'm going to tank the economy, i'm going to have america default for the first time in its 200-plus years of history. if you don't agree a do it my way. i have said, the leader has said on this side, everything's on the table. we understand that you got to pay for what you buy and we also understand we got to buy less. and we're prepared to do both and in fact we have agreed to do both in e biden talks. now, my friend knows, he talks about economists. the most successful investor in america, i think most people would agree, is waen buffet.
warren buffet said we raise the debt ceiling seven times during the bush administration and now in this congress, under the republicans, they're using it as a hostage and you rp really don't have any business -- and you really don't have any business playing russian roulette to get your way in some manner. we should, he said, be more grown up on. that to that extent he echoed the comments of our speaker who is trying, in my opinion, to get to a place where we can come together, compromise as is critical under democracy, pay our bills and reduce our obligations and reduce spending buffett went on to say, we should be more grown up on that. if we don't meet the august 2 deadline, he observed, you're playing with fire when you don't need to play with fire and we don't need to tell the rest of the world that any time
people in congress start throwing a tantrum that we're not going to pay our bills. that is not responsible behavior. it's not adult behavior. it's not good for anybody in the united states of america. and it's not good for the international community. in fact, senator simpson, who was referring to tom coburn, has said, look, you've got to have everything on the table, including, yes, revenues, yes, taxes. some bard has said that taxes are the price we pay for democracy. they should not be any highe than they need to be but we ought to pay for what we -- for what we buy. if people don't want to pay for it, we ought not to buy it. unfortunately, the reason we racked up $6 trillion in deficits in the reagan and both bush administrations is because we bought things and didn't pay for them. as you heard me say at the
white house, we, beth parties, voted for some things and didn't pay for them. we've got to stop that. that's why we put in place statutory pay-go. you say, well, we've changed. you passed a budget that doesn't balance the budget for the next 27 years. you passed a budget you voted for that. i didn't vote for that budget. doesn't balance the budget for 27 years. almost three decades. very frankly, i don't think that does it. that's why we we down to the white house yesterday and almost everybody in the room said, we immediate to do a comphensive, disciplined, courageous, honest, principled resolution of doing what you say you want to do, that your party wants to do, and what i'm telling you, my friend, we want
to do, because the is no option. we must bring this deficit down. we must -- the debt we have confronting us is not sustainable. i would urge my friend, and i want to congratulate speaker boehner who at the white house said, look, we need to do this, we need to have a comprehensive agreement. that's what democracy demands. i'm not going to agree with some of the things in that bill. you're not going to agree with some of the things in that bill. if in fact we pass the bill. but if we come together, if we act as adults, if we do what every responsible financial onomist and advisor has told us we must do then america will be pleased with us. i tell my friend from virginia
if we don't do that, if we continue to buy things we don't pay for and we continue to ask the people to get it for free, then frankly, your children and my grandchildrennd children and great grandchildren will not be happy with us. so i urge my friend, he and i will be going to the white house on sunday. i urge him to come to the table, as i will come to the table, i tell him, with the understanding that compromise is essential. that the pry crisis that confronts us is real. and that america expects us to act in their best interests and have the colonel, not the politics, not the ego, not the view of the next election, but the view of the long-term as we come together and try to confront this issue for which all of us are responsible, no one party, no one member, all
of us. are responsible. but then again if that is the case, we are all responsible for its resolution. and i yield back -- i yield to the gentleman. mr. caor: i thank the gentleman. i would just try and keep my remarks short and that is to say, you know, lisn, it's about jobs right now. the gentleman correctly points out, we have a real spending problem here. and the question is, how do we address the first priority to get americans back to work, and address that spending problem we got? now if the gentleman says we have to pay for what we buy, i certainly agree with that. we ought to st be buying less. as a government. because the money doesn't belong to the government, it belongs to the people and if we want more people to get back work, we should allow themo keep more of their money so that they can createobs.
and that's really where the fundamental disagreement has been over the last couple of weeks. it cerinly was what put the biden talks into abeyance because thers a lot of good work that was done by both sides of the aisle in that talk. and i still believe that the product of those talks will prove to be the basis upon which we can arrive at an appropriate resolution of the challenge before us around the debt ceiling. but why these talks ended was that your side insisted that we raise taxes. and i would say to the gentleman, raing taxes is, as he would put it, paying for what we buy. i'm saying, let's stop buying so much. and let the people decide what it is they want to do with their money. mr. hoyer: reclaiming my time --
mr. cantor: if i could finish, i'll yield back. mr. hoyer: i'll continue to yield. mr. cantor: i know the gentleman likes to focus on the hstry before, but every time the gentlemasays, job lost here, jobs lost there, to posit again, there have been 1.7 million jobs lost since the stimulus bill we feel didn't need tdo the stimulus bill because now we are stuck with over $800 billion in additional debt with now unemployment today at 9.2%. so again, question whether we're on the right policies here and we're spending the dollars we need to be spending. maybe we shouldn't snd it. maybe we suld let it be invested in the private sector. i would end by saying again, the deficit is a real problem. we got a $1.6 trillion deficit
this queer, largest in the history, and third consecutive year of trillion-dollars of deficit. i say to the gentleman, . speaker, we can't tolerate that. the president shouldn't tolerate that. the american people have no patience anymore. that's why we need to get to work trying -- try to lower the hyperbole and get the job done. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. the gentleman, i understand, does not like me to look back. but the problem with being around for some time, you hear people say things that this isn't going to work or that is going to work and you know what? hopefully that ought to be instructive as to whether it did work or didn't work. the problem i have, which apparently, i know you don't appreciate, is that i've heard the rhetoric before that you just used today and i heard it in 1993 on a program which had
revenues in it, or as you like to say, taxes, obviously those are revenues. and it was going to destroy the economy. who said so? phil gramm, economist onour side. said we would deficit -- devastate the economy. he was dead, flat, wrong. 180 degrees wrong. we had the best economy in your lifetime. now furthermore, and let me instruct the gentleman, i don't know what you're reading from but your figures are wrong. over the last 20 months, we have gained two million jobs, two million jobs. now, did we lose a lot of jobs in the first six months? we did. now, there is no doubt in my mind for one second that if it had been a republican president and democratic administration, there is no president who
wouldn't have blamed that on their predecessor because they couldn't turn it around. so when the stimulus took effect, we gained two million jobs. have we duaned enough? no. we lost eight million jobs under the bush administration. we've only filled 25% of the hole. i don'know what paper you're looking at, but check your gures. this past month was disappointing. but some people are doing pretty well in america. stock market closed at about 12.7 plus yesterday. one thing i think people are worried about is making sure we act as adults, act responsibly, pay our bills and ensure that america does not default. all i'm going to say, and then i'll close, is that i hope the gentleman and i join together on sunday and every day thereafter between now and when we can resolve this issue is so that we can pay our bills,
stabilize our economy, and give what the gentleman talked a lot about in our colloquies when our positions were reversed, i remember those days, talked a lot about, and that was competence. that was stability. the failure for us to act. as we acted seven times in the bush administration to rse the debt limit and i don't have the specific number but more than that in the reagan administration. and by the way, in the last fouriers of the clinton administration, does the gentleman remember how many times we raised the debt limit? zero. zero. why? because for every up with of those four years we had a surplus. not a deficit. a surplus. mr. greenspan was worried at the end of theclinton administration we were going to pay off the debt too quickly. and president bush projected a
$5.6 trillion surplus. so i tell my friend that the reason i look back is to not repeat the mistakes of the past. we didn't pay our bills. we paid our bills in the 1990's, we started not paying our bills again, you jettisonned the statutory pay-go, jettisonned it again, essentially, not the statutory part but the rule part. i would hope, again, i don't enjoy going back and forth on this but i am concerned for my country. the speaker said he waed to solve this problem by june 30. it's now jewel 7. -- july . we haven't resolved it. the country is waiting for us. let us hope that all of us will not say, can't do this, can't do that, can't do the other. let's go down to the white house on sunday, with the president, with the senate, with the leaders of this house,
and say, yes we can. we can be responsible, we >> house leaders from earlier today after they passed the 2012 defense spending bill, they are back to work on an energy funding bill. the house returns at noon for morning our speeches and the legislative business following that. the economics reporter talks about the june unemployment numbers that rose to 9.2%. and andrew johnson talks about the fund scandal in britain. and how the shutdown of the british tabloid news of the world affects of journalistic standards in the future. and we discussed the south korea free trade agreement and the details involved in that a pending deal. and your phone calls, and
females, and more live on c- span. earlier today, british prime minister david cameron took questions from reporters on his government's response to that scandal by some journalists at a news of the world. he also commented on his decision to higher the man arrested earlier today on allegations of corruption and involvement when he was editor. the news conference from london is 45 minutes. >> in the morning, everyone, and thank you for coming. over the last few days, the whole country has been shocked by the revelations of the phone
hacking scandal. murder victims, terrorist victims', families that lost loved ones who sometimes defending our country, that these people could have their funds have been two to yield stories for a newspaper is simply disgusting. i cannot think what was going to the minds of the people that did this. that they can get into anyone's phone is disgraceful. but a young girl missing from her parents that was later found to be murdered is truly despicable. this scandal is not just about some journalists or one newspaper. it is not even just about the press. it is also about the police and about how politics works and politicians, too. i want to be very frank about how, as a country, we should deal with this.
people want to know that three things are going to happen. that action will be taken to get to the bottom of these specific revelations and allegations about police investigations and the rest of it. that action will be taken to learn a wider lessons. and people want clarity. rio clarity about how this came to pass. about the responsibilities we all have for the future. that is what this country expect at this time of crisis. i want to make sure that everything that needs to be done will be done. first, we need action to get to the bottom of the specific revelations and allegations that we see. it is clear that there have been some illegal and -- there is a
large scale police investigation is it is plainly inadequate. this is itself requires investigation. the second allegation is that police officers cut payments. with my full support, they brought in the independent commission to overlook this. those investigating the police, who has full independent oversight. police investigations can only get you so far. what people really want to know is what happened, and how is it allowed to happen? the deputy prime tester and i agree that it is proper to establish a full public inquiry to get to the bottom of what
happened. a judge needs to be in charge, so there is no question that it is totally independent. why did the first police investigation fail? what was going on at news of the world and at other newspapers? the bulk of the work can only happen after the police investigation is finished. that doesn't mean we can't do anything now. we will consult on the terms of reference, the powers, and what we can get started, we will get started. i want everyone to be clear. everything that happened is going to be investigated. he witnesses will be questioned by a judge under oath and no stone will be left unturned. we need actions for wider lessons of the press. this is something we can get on
with straightaway. that is why i want to establish a second inquiry to begin at the earliest available opportunity. it should be conducted by credible panel figures that draw from a range of different backgrounds should be truly independent without any motive but to seek the truth and clean up the press. the second inquiry showed the culture of the british press. they should look at how our newspapers are regulated and make recommendations for the future. our press is free. it is essential components. but the press are not above the law. there is much excellent journalism in britain today, but the way the press is regulated is not working.
the press complaints commission has failed. in this case, it was pretty much absent. therefore, we have to conclude that it is ineffective and lacking in record. competing newspapers to judge each other. as a result, it lacks public confidence. i believe we need a new system entirely. lester in prison and is that it should be truly independent of the press so that the public will love the newspapers will no longer be solely responsible for policing themselves and independent of government. how politicians are not going to try to control the press. this new system of regulation must strike a balance between an individual's right to privacy and what is in the public interest.
it should of pull the the proper decent standards. in the days ahead, we meet with the leader of the opposition to discuss exactly how they should be run. if we are going to discuss the way the press is regulated, it would be much better to do this on a cross party basis. people are also talking about their respective bskyb bid. they must follow procedures. his role is to take the advice of the independent regulators and as the department made clear this morning, how this will take some time. there is, as i have said at the outset, it is not an easy one for me to answer. it is my responsibility to try.
how did we get here? as we consider the devastating revelations of the past few days, it is no good to point at that individual journalists or newspaper. the truth is, we have all been in this together. the leaders of all parties, yes, including me. during the last government, the police investigation was undertaken. not enough was done. there were reports from the information commissioner. there were reports, but there was no follow-up. after all of the concern, the government at the time did nothing, and neither did the opposition. it is difficult for politicians to call for regulation of the media. we are accused of wanting to
stifle a free press or free speech. the deeper truth is this. there is a less noble reason. because of party leaders were wanting to win the support of newspapers, which turned a blind eye to the need to get on top of the bad practices and change the way newspapers are regulated. the people in power knew things weren't right, but they did not do enough quickly enough until the full mass of the situation was revealed. the truth is planned for everyone to see. you can downplay its or deny that the problem is the. you can accept the seriousness of the situation and deal with it. these inquiries give fresh chance for a fresh start and i
want to take it. it is healthy that politicians and journalists to speak to each other and know each other. democracy is government by explanation. this is a wake-up call. over the decades, politicians and the press have spent time courting support, and not confronting problems. it is on my watch that the music has stopped. i am saying loud and clear that things have got to change. the relationship needs to be different in the future. i'm not going to pretend there is some nevada in total transparency and technical perfection. that is not real life. we can do a helluva lot better than what we have done so far. it is vital that a free press can tell the truth to power, it
is equally important that those in power tell the truth to the press. let me say this about a couple of the individuals concerned. he worked for four years as director of communications resigned from the news of the world because of the things that happened on his watch. i decided to give him a second chance to and no one has complained about the job he did. he resigned again. i take full responsibility for it. on the case of rebecca brooks, i don't think it is right for the prime minister to start picking and choosing who should run and who should not run media organizations. it has been reported that she offered her resignation over this. before i take your questions, let me say this. for people watching this scandal
unfolded, there is something disturbing about what they see. just think about who they put their trust in. the politicians that represent them, and all of them -- a political system that people think is on their side and a press that is yet free and vigorous and holds those in power to drive them completely mad. we need a free press that is all so clean and trustworthy. that is what people want, that is not what i want. -- and that is what i want.
>> we have asked him many times about your decision to appoint an be as your main communications man. you said that he resigned and paid the price. given that hundreds of people lost their jobs yesterday, given that the editor said that he warned you of what they might have had and you would have known what would have happened under his watch, is and it's time that you not only take responsibility, but you screwed up? >> i made that decision to employ him. he said at the time that he did not know what was happening what was happening on his watch and he paid the price. my decision alone to give him a second chance. he worked for me in opposition, and government, but the second chance did not work. he had to resign all over again for what happened.
i don't think it is particularly meaningful today to try to put a different lost on that or go over it again in a different way. people will judge me for that and i understand that. that is the decision i made and that is what i am going to say about it. people will judge or the they think is right to give someone a second chance, or they don't. i don't know what these people did know or did not know. i don't think any of us knew what they did know or did not know. when you are investigated by the police and the truth is out, it won't be a question of whether not have jobs, it is a question of whether or not they're going to be prosecuted and punished. that is what needs to happen. indeed a police investigation and the public inquiry.
as prime minister, people want to know if i am going to soar this issue out. a proper police investigation, no cover up, and yes, some frankness. the relationship that became too close. we were all wanting the support of newspaper groups and broadcasting organizations. do we spend enough time asking questions about how the organizations are regulated? there is a new chance to do that and does what i am saying we are going to do today. people will decide if it was ready to give some my second chance horne nodded. i can tell you the checks i made and the questions i asked. i do think it is right to try to judge an individual by the work they did for me. if i had employed someone who
was given a second chance and they did terrible things, then yes, i completely understand how people have a right to say, why on earth did you do that? i made the conscious choice to give someone a second chance. he worked for me well but he decided in the end that a second chance would not work. he had to resign all over again for the first offense. >> at issue here surely, is your judgment. why did you believe the man that had resigned over that? and why did you ignore those that warn you it was widespread? why do you doubt say that as leader of the country, you can't say anything about the planned takeover of one of the country's biggest broadcasters?
>> first of all, why did i take this decision? i saw someone who had paid a price for what had gone wrong under his stewardship who resigned because of what had gone wrong. there was a police investigation ha, there was a trial. he said that he did not know what was happening at the news of the world and i decided to give him a second chance. that is all i can do. i think i am also perfectly right to except -- >> you have explained why you hired him. but you fired him when many people were saying that it was widespread and when many believe will believed it was simply impossible for someone to say,
nothing to do with me. >> and no one gave me specific information. i looked for assurances and received assurances. i commissioned a basic background check and i am not hiding from the decision i made. as editor had resigned. he said he did not know what was happening on his watch, he resigned when he found out. all i can do is set out my thinking, had to think it is fair to say, as someone who ran to medications, people did not have a complaint about how he did his job. in some contrast, the have reduced -- that produced dossiers. the second is, who is right to try to take this issue forward and deal with a very complicated
in a difficult set of questions. how do we get to the groups of what went wrong the first time around? how do we make sure the relationship between the press and the politicians is more helpful. the mistake made by all of us, including wanting to get good coverage from newspaper groups. if you can recognize the depth of a problem, set out what the solutions are, you have a good chance of taking the country with you and getting to a point where our democracy is in better shape, the police is in better shape. >> how was it right to close the news of the world? to use your terminology, with hindsight, was there anything hon -- anything unhealthy about your interaction with the
murdoch's. and do you think that they are fit and proper people to run bskyb. >> it is not my decision about which are open and which are closed. i think the problem here is that it is not the paper. it is the practices. what needs to change is not the name of the newspaper, what needs to change as the practices the golan and make sure that they are illegal and properly accounted for and properly managed. it is not fair for me to say what remain open and remained closed, but i set up the processes and inquiries to make sure that we don't have these things never happen again.
you are bound to, as a party leader, wanting to have a relationship with journalists and you do that because if you have a mission to try to explain how you want to change and improve our country. that means talking to the head of the guardian, you get out there and do it. that is what i have done for the last five years. the problem we are correctly identifying is because leading politicians feel so passionately about wanting to get that message across, not just with the murdoch's, we don't actually saugh had spent enough time asking, is this organization behaving properly? is the media properly regulated? that is the problem. it is not the nature of the
interaction. is the failure to ask the fundamental questions about media practices and the rest of it. that is not just about relationships with news international. that applies to everybody. and the thing that is where we have a genuine opportunity, he sort of cathartic moment for politicians and media groups to say that we're going to have these inquiries. they will be difficult for everybody to learn the lessons of. they will come out with a new way of regulating the press that ensures freedom and responsibility. and politicians will step up to the plate and stop trying to get favor with the media and regulate properly so that we have a better situation. the point i make about this is that there are proper organizations and procedures for looking at mergers and takeovers
in this country. people have concerns about competition. they have concerns about who is fit and proper and right to run a broadcasting license, a think it is important that this is done in the proper way with advice from the proper bodies. is improper for her a prime minister to say -- that would take us to a very dangerous place. left proper bodies to look a plurality. they must all do their job and based on the relevant and up-to- date information. let's have channel 5. saying you want everything to change, but that is after everything has come crashing down this week. you did have the chance to take
the lead as party leader and you did not do it. are you sorry that you did not do that out? >> i don't really accept the premise on that question. i said that we are going to have not an inquiry but inquiries. i am starting to set out how they're going to work. i am also being very frank which is not easy for politicians. i think you're missing part of the point, what has gone wrong in the relationship and to a except part of that responsibility. there is a similarity were frankly, you could point to some parties having a better record than other parties. but the politicians have not spoken up about it and they needed to. the question is, are you awake and doing something about it?
as i said this morning. i believe i do. >> you have said that people will judge you about your decision to hire him. it is difficult for them to do that until they know what questions you asked of him. you asked questions and you referred to a background check. can you tell us when you've got assurances, or they assurances in the broad generic sense about whether he might cause you any trouble in the future, or whether you said that with him and asked him specific questions. that was that just one conversation before you hired him? or was it a conversation he repeated last year. >> there are some specific assurances and the general
entrances as you would expect. there was a series of meetings we had after he resigned from the news of the world before he came to work with me. i think your point, how can people actually the is a good one. the truth is, i asked for assurances. he said he resigned because of what happened but he did not know that hacking had taken place. as we stand today with police investigations, we don't know who knew what about what. that has now got to take place. and people will see not whether they have the right to resign from their jobs, but whether they will be prosecuted and found guilty of something worse. all i can say is what i did, the
decision that i took. he did his job in extremely respectable way and was a very good individual to work with. he was very much liked by the people he worked with and that is why he came into the operation. but he found that the second chance did not work because of his need to reside the first time for what happened on his watch, he had to do that all over again. i have tried to ask the question as best i can. there we are. daybreak. sorry. >> you talked about the public and giving us more details, there are those that say the inquiry could start now, and are you concerned that we can hear the shredding machines in
various places, perhaps losing some of that very vital evidence? >> we can start getting together the terms of reference, some of the paperwork. you can'tan't do, if start a full on judgment inquiry questioning witnesses about what happened at the news of the world while they're also being questioned by the police. the inquiry into detainee's is quite a good example of this. there is still one criminal case over this. he got his committee together and they can't actually get started on the meat of the report. the have to wait to the end of this criminal case. we could have many more that will take even longer. i want to get it suited out --
sorted out as soon as possible. i am chomping at the bit to get the judicial full public inquiry set up. i want us to give these things sorted. it is this black cloud hovering over the parliament and the police. i am determined to do it, i have set out every comprehensive plan for how that is to be done. >> are you saying that at the time that he came to downing street, the senior official was warned that he had links to the former private detective that was facing trial for murder? and secondly, can i check with you that he authorized payments to cover up illegal activity?
>> on the issue of what i was told, i wasn't given any specific factual information. the decision i took was right from the beginning, very bad things had happened, he had resigned. i give him a second chance. he proved himself as an effective person, and it was acceptable for him to come. he was the decision will be held responsible for. he wasn't given any specific information that would lead me to change my mind. i watched your editor on news night last night. given anycall being information. the decision i made, i kept it under review but felt it was still the right decision that he resigned over what happened and
he proved himself at his job and he should have a second chance that i wanted to give him. the second chance did not work and he had to resign all over again. >> was a member of your staff was warned? >> on james murdock, i read the statement yesterday. it raises lots of questions that need to be answered in these processes are going to have to answer all those questions. i will get to the wall. >> hugh compared to the expenses saba and the need for daylight, sunlight, and transparency. i am not clear on if you're setting new daylight with your interaction with proprietor's. people might go away thinking this is the same hold horse
riding. what i tell us you're going to do something that we can measure you against? on this other thing, you keep saying you don't want to gloss over things, but aren't you in danger of doing just that? didn't you just turn a blind eye to what every person knew? >> on the issue of daylight, i have an agreement with that. it should be looked at what the government has done. it is not just of data about public services, it is data about meetings and i think a regular roster of people that have come for meetings here. i think there may be room, and maybe we can start on it earlier, for more transparency about meetings. we do that a lot with the lobby
groups and interest groups. it is a good agenda. there may be some questions if suddenly every journalist had to publish every meeting they had. but it is worth looking at. on the issue of andy, i accept he was editor of the newspaper were very bad things happen. at the time i made the decision, there had been a police investigation and a member of staff prosecuted and imprisoned. what looked on the surface of the, a proper investigation had taken place. it seems that he resigned for what had happened which he said he did not know about, it was reasonable to offer that person a second chance. i can only repeat of the thinking i went through and people will judge me on that.
the point i put in is that you also have to judge him on the work he did for me. that is important. on the question of judgment, if the person who was accused of doing these things, did some terrible things working for me, it would be a different point. i can only put the way i felt about it the many ways as i can. i will get to you in the end, i promise. i watched your program last night, so that as a good start. i wasn't back at 10:00. >> of the subject of a certain individual in your employment, as does a hypothetical question, if someone who gave you assurances about criminal
activity and then proves to have told you the wrong thing, lied to you or certainly misled you, would you feel betrayed by the person? >> if you are given assurances that they turn out to be true, you are in a different situation. i looked for assurances, i was given assurances and i appointed someone knowingly that had resigned because of what happened at the previous organization. i took the decision to give that person a second chance. i can only describe in asking it is. >> when the guardian came out with the story in the summer of 2009, shouldn't you have called him in and said, what is all this about? tell me everything.
and when he resigned in january, did he wore new that more was going to come out? did you ask them? and specifically, did he tell you about the males indicating that he had authorized payments to policemen. >> of the last question, i did not know about the e-mail and we did not discuss that. on the issue of his leaving, this is something we discussed before christmas. it wasn't in the light of any specific thing. a second chance wasn't working. he was given a second chance, he was working very hard for the government of the country and was finding it impossible to do his job because of the allegations and the conclusion he came to, rightly, was that
the second chances of working, i have to resign all over again and it was the decision that was made. >> at that point, shouldn't you have said, tell us what is to come? >> does not the conversation that was added. even at that point, he was finding he could not do his job because of allegations swirling around. during his employment, of course we discussed this issue. i saw no reason to alter the assurances he gave me. as i said, the second chance didn't work and he resigned all over again and he is now under police investigation as others will be. the police investigation has to go forward unhindered. i think it is important people of this. it is a properly resolved police
investigate -- police investigation that doesn't involve any of the police from the earlier investigation. that is the absolute priority now. and we can go to the inquiries that can give us a much richer understanding of what went wrong. >> did you will have in and say, what went on here? >> i had conversations with him, but it never changed any of my assurances. sorry. >> since he resigned, have you been in contact with him? is he still a friend? >> i have seen him recently, not frequently. when you work with someone for four years, i became friends with them.
i think he did his job for me into the conservative party, a various effective way. he became of friend and is a friend. i haven't seen him, i have been quite busy over the last year. you make friends with someone when you work with them for four years. >> could this be your equivalent of tony blair's iraq moment? 1987 that chance if it turns out he lied to you? lied to the country --
>> that is the responsibility i have, and people will make judgments. it is different, frankly, taking money for tobacco advertising and starting a war. i think it is different, but people have to decide. the buck stops right here. i take full responsibility for everything i do. was it right to give someone a second chance? people will decide. all i can do is explain why i did what i did. and the fact that he is not working here, he resigned all over again.
>> can i take you back to james murdoch if he affectively misled parliament, if they approved payments to ask people to stay silent about criminal activities, would you like the police to interview him? what would he have to do for you to feel that he is a fit and proper person to run a media organization. it is bad if the primary -- >> ifis a dangeourous world the prime minister is using who is running -- and i have also made very clear the statement made yesterday, it leaves all sorts of questions to be
answered. the questions about the police inquiry, why it didn't work the first time around, questions about what the public inquiry is going to look at. questions about how we reform media regulations. and questions politicians asked among themselves. that is my responsibility, what i will do to the best of my ability. that is what i am determined to do. the police must feel that they can go where they need and they should not do it feeling like they're going to be directed away from an individual or towards an individual. they must question everyone and get to the bottom of this. let's just remember, in closing, why this matter so much. some of the families in our country that have suffered the most from losing their children
and their loved ones are being made to suffer all over again in the most terrific and hideous way. and to watch them on television, having to relive the agony they live through, the whole country feels pain on their behalf that this is happening. that is why it is so vital as a country that we quit this. that is why it is vital that newspapers ask themselves what went wrong, for politicians to ask themselves why this relationship between the press and politicians did not work out for the benefit of the country and why we need to ask why the police did not get it right the first time around. these are difficult questions, but the key test for the prime minister, for the government is to say, "have we got the right processes to get to the bottom of every single part of this problem? are we going to take responsibility for the decisions we have taken?" my answer is yes.
in spades, it will be done, and it will be done by this prime minister and this government. thank you very much indeed. >> a late update on this story -- the associated press reporting british police have arrested a third man on suspicion of corruption related to the tabloid phone hacking. looking at our prime-time schedule coming up on c-span, starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern, remarks from president obama on unemployment numbers from june, which rose to 9.2%. we will hear more about that from house republican leaders who spoke to reporters about job creation. after that, house minority leader pelosi talks about her meeting today with president obama anti ongoing debt and deficit reduction talks. also this evening, democratic caucus leaders preview this weekend's meeting at the white house on raising the debt ceiling. all of that getting under way tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern. yesterday, officials from several independent federal agencies insisted that they're
responding to a non-funding request by the white house to reduce and streamline federal regulations. we will hear testimony from officials who work for the consumer product safety commission, the fcc, and the federal trade commission. they spoke to members of a house commerce subcommittee, and we will begin with the representative who serves as ranking member on the subcommittee. this is two and a half hours. >> this is the fourth in a series of hearings examining the government regulatory review process, and i, frankly, am pleased to hear you today embraced the president's executive order that sets forth principles and regulations protecting public health, welfare, safety, and the environment while at the same time promoting economic growth and competitiveness. i thought you were this was excellent, talking to us about how we can all agree on a bipartisan basis that we should eliminate unnecessary regulations that the agencies.
today, we have witnesses -- and i am happy to welcome all of them, particularly my former colleague, congresswoman northrop -- and these witnesses represent four important independent federal agencies. the consumer product safety commission, the federal energy regulatory commission, the federal communications commission, and the federal trade commission. congress created these agencies as independent agencies, and so therefore, as you noted, mr. chairman, they are not covered explicitly by the president's executive order on regulatory review, but it is important for the subcommittee and the public to understand whether or not the independent regulatory review processes at these agencies are effective and efficient. i would like to correct the record. in the testimony, one witness said he had urged these independent agencies to conduct
regulatory review processes, but he did not say that they should submit reports to him, like the agencies under the purview of the executive order, so i was a little confused. mr. chairman, when you had said that somehow they should submit reports because not only are they not required to, but they do not believe that these agencies are directly subject to these executive orders, and that is, in order to prevent any president -- democrat or republican -- from overreaching their authority. as we hear from these agencies under regulatory review efforts, i think we need to keep a few thoughts in mind. first, these agencies were created originally as independent entities to insulate them from political influence, and have we given them decision making flexibility is that other agencies do not have -- and we have given the decision making
flexibility that other agencies do not have. second, there are a number of statutory requirements concerning transparency and efficiency in the regulatory process that already applies to the independent agencies. for example, the regulatory flexibility act requires federal agencies, including independent agencies, to analyze the impact of their rules on small organizations. the administrative procedure act broadly lays out the scheme under which agency's proposed and finalize regulations, and provides for public participation in the process -- under which agencies propose and finalize regulations. finally, the hearing today is for the safety for all of our citizens. while we make sure that the proposals are not burdensome, we should also of knowledge the importance of the work they do and the regulations they promulgate. for example, this year, the fcc
issued a report in order to adopt a rule regarding local providers to enter data roaming our arrangements with other providers, allowing consumers to remain connected when they travel outside their coverage area. ftc -- fcc recently established the do not call registry, which lets consumers choose whether they want to receive calls from telemarketers. this is wildly popular with my constituents, by the way. furthermore, as an a judicatory body handling extremely complicated issues on the electricity market. but i want to talk in the last minute i have about the recent proposals on the other side of the aisle that would undermine the consumer product safety commission and some of the other good work that they have done. three years ago, this committee and this congress work hard in a significantly bipartisan manner to put meaningful reforms for consumers into this consumer product safety improvement act. this has resulted in
unbelievable benefits. it has resulted in a wide range of efforts to protect children from mandatory standards for cribs to the problem of dangerous toys to banning certain materials and on and on, and this shows that it is continuing to happen. it is important to notice that these reforms were worked out by this committee in one of the last great efforts that was completely bipartisan. we should embrace that. if there are problems with the way the regulations are being promulgated, we need to talk about that, but eliminating these important consumer product safety commission's is simply not an option. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, gentle lady. the gentleman from nebraska is recognized for three minutes. >> thank you. i appreciate you holding this important regulatory reform hearing. i applauded the president when he issued his executive order, creating the cost/benefit
analysis and looking towards creation of jobs compared to elimination of jobs by regulation. i feel that it is time that the independent agencies adopt this, and that is why i have introduced h.r. 2204, the employment act, which would require that all major regulations include a statement of the number of jobs created, lost, or sent overseas because of the new rules and regulations. under this act, all major federal actions significantly affecting jobs and job opportunities would require rigorous analysis comparable to that given to the environmental impacts. this would establish that jobs are important, as is public health and the environment. this would be an issue of you could take into affect the jobs lost by certain american toy companies when we figure out
that children do not eat atv's, but banning those could have an impact on jobs. we have already seen the problems caused by regulators not paying enough attention to the effect their actions have on jobs. in my own district, regulations enacted by the consumer product safety commission, acting far beyond its authority or the intent of this law -- what i feel is not one of the most important ones -- it is important, but it may be an example of one of the most poorly written bills as well. for example, a local small business making children's clothing, some of which they have contracted to have done in china as well as omaha. does it really makes sense that
the same design has to be tested on every size of t-shirt, a different color of teacher -- t- shirt? does it make sure it -- as it makes sense that -- does it make sense that they have to add 10 together? this type of system where it is one size fits all, it really does not make a lot of sense. i have found out the irony is that many of these rules do not really protect the consumers. they just make it more difficult to do their job, really putting small businesses in particular on the brink of extinction because of these unnecessary rules and regulations. i appreciate that hearing -- this hearing so we can protect and i give my time back to the chairman.
>> i thank the gentleman, and i yield two minutes to the gentle lady from tennessee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome to our witnesses. we appreciate that you are here to talk with us about the president's executive order, 12563, and its non-application to the independent agencies. these agencies have refused to voluntarily comply with the order to require justification for the costs and burdens of the regulation. some agencies believe that their political ends justify their regulatory means and that their insulation from the traditional checks and balances is a blank check for them to pursue hyperactive this causes. bureaucrats bolted a restrictive plate to our economic engine, and they really have lack private sector job growth. now, they are resisting voluntary compliance with the order because failing to justify
their costly regulations means congress and the american people are going to raise more questions instead of delegating more power and authority. these agencies do not know how to make the best individual decisions for us, what food we eat, what privacy settings we want on our mobile devices or what levels we prefer to use in our homes. these agencies that use explicit regulatory intimidation and threats of government taking to impose voluntary regulations on job creators are not even willing to hold themselves to the same standard. they refused. we need to hold these agencies accountable. let's ensure greater efforts are taken to balance the economic harms with the agencies, that these agencies are causing on our economic growth and jobs, and i yield back. >> recognize distinguished ranking member, mr. waxman, for
five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. this is the fourth hearing this subcommittee has had on the issue of regulations. the others have been on the president's executive order, and the third focused on health regulations that were recently adopted. now, we are looking at the independent regulatory agencies. the president's executive order applies to those agencies that are under the office of management and budget. they are not independent. the agencies before us are determined by lot to be independent. that does not mean they did not take into consideration costs and benefits when the issue regulations. they have to have notice of comment and get full input. i think what we need to do is to make sure we do not have regulations that are unnecessary, but these hearings that we have had devolved into forums for questioning consumer
protection laws that my colleagues on the republican side of the i'll find objectionable. i was struck by the comment of the last speaker that we do not want these independent agencies -- they do not make good decisions. they do not know how to make the best decisions. they are using regulatory intimidation on job creators. i can think of no other expression of hyper view of all of this. we should not have a lopsided focus on the cost with no seeming consideration of the benefit, and we have not had areas resulting in a substantial legislation or important oversight findings. the four independent agencies have done a lot to make the lives of the american citizens better. the consumer product safety commission recently launched a new consumer complete database, which allows parents and concerned consumers to obtain important product safety
information, which will improve the ability to identify trends and product hazards more efficiently. this morning, i released the first analysis of the product safety data base. we found that in its first three months of operation, the database already logged over 1600 incident reports, including reports of over 500 injuries or fatalities, and consumers visiting the online database have conducted almost 1.8 million products surges. maybe some of these manufacturers do not want anybody looking over their shoulder, but that is not the job of the agencies, to do what the manufacturers want. their job is to protect the consumer. i would ask unanimous consent that this report be included as part of the committee report. >> will the gentleman told? i think we just have a copy of it. >> i will withdraw. the fcc just proposed rulemaking
to provide -- to make sure cell phone companies provide alerts that warn consumers of unexpected charges on their bills. seven months ago, the agency adopted a crucial will to protect the openness of the internet. i think these are two very important accomplishments. the ftc recently adopted rules to protect homeowners from scams, falsely promising relief from mortgage payments. in the last year alone, the bureau of protection filed over 60 cases to protect the rights of the consumers. is this intimidation? seems to me, these agencies are doing their jobs. we want to keep them independent from the political pressure that you can see clearly in the comments of members of this committee. first, protect consumers from price gouging in the electricity market. these accomplishments are important. they save money for the american public, prevent fraud, improve
public safety and public health. they may offend powerful companies that would like to take advantage of consumers, and which may have support by some members of congress, but that is no reason for us to browbeat the agency. the focus of our oversight should be to help these agencies advance the goal of enhancing the lives of the american family. our committee is responsible in the area of legislation in some key areas. sitting at asians -- the nation's energy policy, promoting telecommunication innovation and competitiveness, and ensuring appropriate consumer protection for american families and children. the oversight work of this subcommittee should shed light on how best to legislate in these areas and other important subject. that is why there are real costs when this committee focus is it's time on partisan wheel's spinning and messaging. we lose the opportunity to move
legislation that will promote jobs, promote economic security, protect health safety and welfare of the american public. we hope that we make good use of our time today with the commissioners. , the chairman, and all members who support their efforts on behalf of the american public. >> i thank the gentleman, and all opening statements are concluded. i ask unanimous consent that the written opening statements be made part of the record. without objection, the documents will be entered into the record. it is my opportunity to welcome our distinguished panel. i am starting to realize my experience in congress where i have ever seen these many agencies collected together, and i do not think there ever has been, at least in my experience, so it is a very auspicious occasion to have this distinguished group here to me. we appreciate you coming.
i thought i would just give you a brief filed on each of the witnesses. commissioner adler, consumer product safety commission, a commissioner at the united states consumer product safety commission. he was appointed in august 2009. prior to assuming office, he served as professor of legal studies at the university of north carolina at the luther hodges jr. scholars in ethics and law. at the university of north carolina, he served as associate dean of the india program, the associate dean of the school a bachelor science, welcome. commissioner northrop is -- the honorable, in fact. she serves the third congressional district of kentucky, representing liberal district in the united states house of representatives as a republican. before her tenure in congress, she served in the kentucky house of representatives for nine
years. from 1987 to 1996. july 30, 2009, president obama nominated her to a seat on the consumer product safety commission and was confirmed by the senate on august 7, 2009. welcome. commissioner robert mcdowell was first appointed to a seat on the federal communication commission by president bush. in 2006, was reappointed to the commission by president barack obama in 2009. he brings over 16 years in experience in the telecommunications industry. welcome. chairman welling hoff was named chairman of the federal energy regulatory commission. the agency that oversees wholesale gas transportation in the united states by the president on march 19, 2009. a member of the commission since 2006. the u.s. senate confirmed him to a full five-year term in 2009.
he is an energy specialist with more than 34 years' experience in the field. welcome. . moehler is currently serving his second term on the commission of ferc. he was first nominated by president bush in 2006, sworn into office on july 2006. from 1997 through 2000, he worked in congress serving as an energy policy adviser, where he worked on electricity policy. then, we have a chairman from the federal trade commission, who served as chairman of this commission since february 2009, was appointed to the ftc in fall 2004. before coming to the commission, he had a long career in public sector.
the commissioners of a federal trade commission since january 2006 and served as chairman from march 2008 to march 2009. he was general counsel from 2001 to 2004 and worked for the commission from 1979 until 1983. he has been a professor of law at george washington university law school and has also taught law at george mason university school of law. welcome. as you know, the testimony you are about to give subject to title 18, was holding an investigative hearing, this committee has a practice of taking testimony under oath. to any of you have any objection to testifying under oath? ok. the chair then advise you that under the rules of the house and the rules of the committee, you are entitled to be advised by counsel. do you desire to be advised by counsel during your testimony today? if not, then please rise --
>> mr. chairman? i hate to interrupt right now, but one thing i would ask, at least of one member here, is that pictures are not take a while they are being sworn in. i know this is done, but i think it is unfair to the witnesses. i think it sends a message that is not appropriate, and i would ask the camera people not to take a picture of individuals with their right hand raised. i just think it is used to often to send the wrong message to the public. everyone here is voluntarily participating, and we should not be given -- giving the false impression to the public. that is just one member's statement, but i think in the environment of fairness on both sides, i want to raise the issue again and again, and i'm doing that today. >> i thank the chairman. as you know, he and i are good friends. unfortunately, i have to overrule you. i think the press has a right to take pictures when they want, and what i have seen in my
experience, being involved with so many oversight investigation hearings as well as others, it is customary to let the press have access, so i'm sorry to have to overrule you. if all of you would please stand up, raise your right hand. do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god? it is my pleasure now to start with opening statements. mr. adler, we welcome you and look forward to your statement. >> thank you very much. good morning, chairman stearns, ranking members, and guests. thank you for the opportunity to testify along with my colleague on behalf of the consumer product safety commission. i had been a commissioner at the agency since august 2009. i am honor to sit in the company of so many of my fellow independent agency commissioners, and i bring you regret from chairman tannenbaum who was not able to be here today. in order for me to respond to
the subcommittee was a request -- the subcommittee's request, i've briefly need to review a few critical points about will making. i do so to make the point that we have undertaken both the promulgation of the and the retrospective review this by our being exempt from the orders. so i would like to make a few observations, and i promise i will be brief. first, since 1981, the cpsc has been required under amendments to the consumer product safety act and other forces to conduct an exhaustive cost-benefit analysis when we write safety rules. under these amendments, our cost benefit approach is as comprehensive if not more so as that set forth in any executive order issued by the office of the president and i think in the case of any other agency. over the years, in part because of the detailed and lengthy cost-benefit procedures
contained in our laws, the commission has promulgated very few mandatory safety rules under these procedures. i did a count, but by my count, in 30 years, we have issued a grand total of nine mandatory safety standards or about one every three and one-third years, which meant we had to turn to alternative approaches. one of which is working with the voluntary standards sector to promulgate voluntary standards and upgrade voluntary standards. the other thing we have done is work through a very successful corrective action recall program, and i think that has been successful. with respect to regulatory review, you did know the passage of the regulatory flexibility act in 1980. at that time, the cpsc chose to undertake a broad -- retroactive -- retrospective review of every agency under its role since the beginning, not just those identified as having a significant impact on a
substantial number of small economic entities. since this review, we have continued to comply with the requirements for retrospective review of our regulations under the regulatory flexibility act. in addition to conducting a retrospective review, the cpsc has voluntarily undertaken a comprehensive review of its regulations, beginning in 2004 and temporarily suspended in 2007 in a spirit consistent with executive order 1356. in conducting our review, we have committed the agency to using omb's assessment tool. the only departure from the tools happen in 2008. in its concern to protect the lives of young children, congress voted overwhelmingly -- in the house, it was a vote of
424-one -- to set a number of very tight deadlines for the commission to meet. our general counsel did a count of the number of deadlines imposed on us. there were 42 separate deadlines. but recognizing the difficulty of meeting these deadlines, congress streamline our rulemaking authority when writing these children safety rules and limiting the requirements for economic analysis of the rules. the streamlined procedure directed to regulate hazardous children's products such as infant back seats, baby walkers, and cribs, all of which were associated with an unacceptable number of fatalities and serious injuries, as i believe resulted in significantly more expeditious and protect the safety standards that should save numerous lives in the coming years and could not have been accomplished otherwise. i particularly want to note the commission's new crib standard, which was unanimously approved by all of our commissioners and
became effective last tuesday, june 28. this standard sets the most stringent safety requirements for cribs in the world and ensures that the place that infants spend the most time and the most time alone will be the safest place in their homes. having noted that, i hasten to add that even with this new authority, the commission remains obligated to conduct economic analyses under the regulatory flexibility act. assuring that our most vulnerable small business sector is safeguarded along with safeguarding our most vulnerable young consumers. the commission is well on its way to meeting the deadlines imposed under the cpsia. we have not met all of them, and we're going to miss a few more, but as we wind down, it is my understanding that chairman tannenbaum has directed staff to develop options to restart the
wreck -- retrospective review process. in closing, notwithstanding that it did in agencies do not fall under the direct purview of the executive orders like 13563, we have always tried to implement the wisdom contained in those executive orders and coordinate our efforts in the spirit of such orders to the best of our ability. finally, i note that cpsc's jurisdiction is very broad. roughly speaking, if you walk into a department store, sporting goods store, hardware store, or go to a school, that is us. those institutions are the things we regulate, but we are an agency that has barely above 500 people and a budget just about $118 million. in other words, i am sitting at a table with agencies that are between 2.5 and three times our size. given these limits on our resources, i think we have done a good job in advancing consumer
safety. thank you very much. >> thank you. welcome. particularly nice to have a former member. >> thank you so much for the opportunity to testify in front of you. i'm delighted to be back on capitol hill with you. i have great respect and appreciation for the challenges you face every day and the decisions you make. i do appreciate the opportunity to come and give you some idea of what it looks like from the other side from a regulatory agency. you just heard an excellent history, a review of the consumer product safety commission, and the past, the way they operate is primarily due to development of voluntary guidelines through risk assessment and intervention. when there were real risks based on science and the ability to interview -- intervene when there were dangerous products. however, all of what was said about the reviews and of our
regulations and the reasonableness of that changed in 2008 when the consumer product safety improvement act went into effect. in fact, very little of that would be present today. as a matter of fact, we no longer have the option to consider risk in most of the things we do. we are required to write rules based on the numbers that were given to us in the cpsia, but that has not stopped us through the regulatory process of casting a wider net, including may be more toys and more children's products or more products than the law requires us to do to make steps with the testing is more rigid than is required by the law. so while the law is very difficult, it has been very hard for small businesses in particular to comply with it.
we have at the agency in my opinion gone beyond what the law has required us to do. let me just give you some idea. in the time since the cpsia past, we have been involved in about 60 rule makings. by the way, lab accreditations are huge because any time we do a notice of requirements for labs to be accredited, within six months, every product under that category has to begin sending every component and every part of their product to a lab for a third-party test and certify based on those tests and label their products to reflect what those certifications are. in truth, while i appreciated what representative said about food companies complaining, it
is actually the opposite. very few of our largest companies complain. most of them make products in such large numbers that they can spread their costs are around. what we have really done is put out of competition the smaller businesses that make things primarily in this country. those are the people that we hear from because they cannot spread their costs of these regulations over so many products. i hear so often people say that is a lot they passed to decrease the number of things coming in from china oro make theig a burden that has put many, many, many small businesses out of business. it has caused them, small businesses to leave the children's product market.
we have the public that has fewer choices than they have ever had in the past, and we are told that our four, by the way, biggest rules are still to come. they're expected before december 31 or to take effect by december 31. i thought i would share with the committee one that i anticipate the we will agree on, the majority. i expect a 3-2 vote. that is allowing the parts per million of lead in any component of a child's product to reduce to 100 parts per million as of august 15. this is what our economic team said about this. economic impact are likely to incur. they are going to have to use more expensive, low lead materials. rather than the non-conforming materials used today. the cost associated with the re- engineering products that make the new materials, the cost to
make component that are inaccessible, the increase testing costs, the increased consumer prices, the reductions in the types and quantity of children's products available to consumers, businesses that are exiting the children's product market, manufacturers going out of business, reduction in the utility of products, and reduction in the durability of products. this is all for this one rule that we are about to allow for this one step down that we are about to take effect, and it says there is no anticipated benefits in health to children because of this. so i would just point out to you that 10 out of 40 of the small manufacturers bicycles left the market with the original step down. we anticipate more will exit the market. my question, i guess, is -- what sort of regulation or rationalization can be brought to this process?
i have proposed many times ways to lessen the impact of this, and i am disappointed we have not done more of that at the commission. thank you. >> thank you for having me here today. during my five years at the fcc, i have supported policies that promote consumer choices to abundance and competition in lieu of regulation whenever possible. i therefore welcome today's dialogue on regulatory reform. 50 years ago, there were only 463 pages in the fcc pose a portion of the code of regulations. americans only had a choice of three tv networks and one phone company. today, over the air tv, cable tv, satellite tv, and radio, and the millions of content suppliers on the internet offer consumers an abundance of
choices. in other words, the american communications economy was far less competitive in 1961 than it is today, but it operated under fewer rules. in contrast, by late 1995, the executed portion had grown to 2933 pages, up from 46340 years earlier. as of the most recent printing last october, it contained a mind-numbing 3695 pages of rules. even after congress codify the regulatory mandates with the landmark telecommunications act of 1996, the sec still manage to add -- the fcc still managed to add hundreds of more pages of rules. to put it another way, our rules measured in pages have grown by almost 800%, all while the communications marketplace have enjoyed more competition. during the same time of regulatory growth, america's gdp grew by a substantially smaller number.
357%. in short, this is one metric illustrating government growth outpacing economic growth. to be fair, some of those rules were written to various congressional mandates, and sometimes the fcc does remove regulations or forebear in response to forbearance petitions, but all in all, the regulatory reach has grown despite congressional attempts to reverse that trend. at the same time, congress has given the fcc ample authority to deregulate. the legislative intent of key parts of the 1996 act such as sections 10, 11, 202h and 706 was to reduce the amount of tell conditions broadcasting services. congress ordered the fcc to forebear from applying a regular talk -- regulation or statutory provision that is not needed to insure that telecom carriers market behavior is reasonable and not necessary for the
protection of consumers. similarly, section 11 required the sec to conduct reviews of telecom rules every to be will used to determine whether any such regulation is no longer in the public interest as the result of meaningful economic competition and to repeal or modify any regulation they determined to be no longer necessary in the public interest. removing unneeded rules can liberate capital currently spent on lawyers and filing fees, capital better spent. the presumption of the review should be that a rule is not necessary unless we find compelling evidence to the contrary. the first set of rules i would discard would be the recently
issued internet network management regulatory regime, also known as net neutrality. as i stated many times before, those rules are necessary at best and will deter investment in badly needed next generation infrastructure. at worst. no evidence of systemic market failure exists to justify these overly burdensome regulations. furthermore, the fcc has too many for spirit to give you some examples, here is for 6 03. 175, 492, 477, 323, and forms 396, 396c, 397, and 398, among many others. while a few may be necessary, many could be eliminated or simplified. similar repeal initiatives should be on our plate soon appeared as i noted in a speech in may, the so-called fairness doctrine is literally still
codify in the cfr. the doctrine regulated political speech. political speech is core protected speech under the first amendment, and the doctrine is patently unconstitutional. the chairman recently informed the committee that he supports removing references to the doctrine and its corollary and intends to move forward on this effort in august. i look forward to helping him fulfill that promise. in the same spirit, it is time to eliminate the outdated newspaper broadcast cross- ownership rule in the upcoming review of our media ownership regulations. evidence suggests that the old ban may have caused the unintended effect of reducing the number of media voices, especially newspapers, in scores of american communities. overall, however, what is needed is a comprehensive and sustained effort to repeal or, where appropriate, streamline unnecessary, outdated, or harmful rules. all future regulatory
proceedings should start with a thorough market analysis that assesses the state of competition in a sober and clear right manner. in the absence of market failure, unnecessary regulations in the name of serving the public interest can have the perverse effect of harming consumers by inhibiting the constructive risk-taking that produces investment, innovation, competition, lower prices, and jobs. in sum, decreasing the burdens of orders or unnecessary regulations increases investment, spurs innovation, accelerate competition, lower prices, creates jobs, and serves consumers. i look forward to working with all of you in pursuit of these goals. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. i want to thank you all for having us here today and my colleague to discuss our views
on regulatory reform in independent agencies. we have submitted full testimony i would like to have entered into the record, and i will summarize my testimony. a commission continually seeks to streamline regulations in order to foster competitive markets and facilitate enhanced competition to minimize consumer costs. in implementing the statutory authority provided by congress, i am committed to assisting consumers in obtaining reliable, efficient, and sustainable services at a reasonable cost to the appropriate regulatory and market means. fulfilling his mission involves fulfilling two primary goals, insuring that rates, terms, and conditions are just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential, developing the door before reliable infrastructure that serves the public interest. the commission has taken and continues to take a number of steps to make certain that its regulations meet the fundamental objectives set forth by congress without imposing undue
burdens on regulated entity's, unnecessary costs on those entities, or their customers. for example, the commission has taken several steps to remove barriers to entry of new businesses and technologies, which facilitate competitive markets and can lower consumer costs. the commission also seeks out ways to help entities, particularly small ones, navigate the federal regulatory process. the commission has also recently reduce burdens on applicants, cleaning up processes of filings and public access to documents. i support the goals of executive order 13563. i directed the commission staff to conduct a review of the commission's regulations with the goals of the executive order in mind. this direction is consistent with the commission was a practice of gauging in constant self-review to avoid red tape or unnecessary regulation that would impose on new burdens on the energy industry and its consumers. thank you, and i look forward to answering any questions. >> thank the gentleman.
>> thank you. appreciate the chance to be before you today to talk about these important issues. i welcome your oversight, and i will summarize my written comments. our brief history, i guess, of how our regulation has evolved at the commission, and i will give examples of where i think we have strove with balancing the need to ensure that our services are provided safely at fair and just made, but also making sure that we are protecting and not unduly burdening the entities that would regulate. the federal our commission, our predecessor, came into its own after the passage of the 1935 federal power act or the 1938 natural gas act, and as regulators then, the commission was highly regulating these entities because they were monopoly providers of services that were deemed essentially, but over the decades, particularly in the last 25 years, the regulation has evolved so that more competitive
forces can provide consumers with, frankly, lower prices and better service. these came through two landmark orders in the natural gas side, which restructured the pipelines, and on the electric side, orders that set up regional markets and allow for open access of the transition systems. these have had great benefits for consumers, but our responsibilities as regulators in monitoring these markets has increased substantially since then. three areas where we particularly spend time, particularly the reliability area in sharing the reliability of more power system. the origins of the issue came from the 1965 ne black out. a voluntary set of regulations can out, but as time went on, particularly in the late 1990's, it was clear that a mandatory system was clear.
some kind of system, and although there was legislation in the late 1990's, it took the 2003 black out and the 2005 energy policy act before you ask congress directed us to create a national electric reliability organization with eight regional entities. in the meantime, we have adopted 101 national standards, 11 regional standards, and we have had a very active enforcement process. in fact, we had several thousand violations to date, since they became mandatory in june 2007, and frankly, we are struggling with it. we have a bit of a back log on these violations. they are up to about 3200. the good news is they are working to make sure that there is a better streamlined process so that we can eliminate the backlog and essentially share the best practices among the
entities we regulate on the bulk power system. the sec and as with our new powers of enforcement partly emanating from the west and crisis in 2000 and 2001, you gave us the kind of major the enforcement authority that few agencies have. we can find agencies -- up to 100 agencies per day per violation. initially, when we put out some of our rulings, there was criticism from the industry that we lack transparency in the process and lack of priorities. i'm happy to say that our office of enforcement under the urging of several of us on the commission has opened up that system so that we are a much more transparent system now. we adopted annual priorities in terms of enforcement, adopted guidelines based on the u.s. sentencing commission and essentially have processes and policies in place that allow
anyone under investigation to know at certain times that they are and give them certain rights that other agencies give them. so we are making progress there. the third area i would note because i come from the pacific northwest, is the hydropower system. we regulate 2000 hydropower dams throughout the nation, and some have complained that the process of licensing or real licensing is costly and time-consuming, and that much is true, but i did not think much of that can be put on ferc. the loss itself that govern the process of licensing are worth looking at if this is something that inspires you. we actually, i think, do a good job under the current system of setting timetables, but often, the resource agencies do not have any consequence to missing the timetables involved. in the meantime, though, i think we have tried as an agency to develop small hydro power systems with various states that are interested. we tried to open up the process
to stakeholders and developers that are interested, and we have come up with a pilot licensing process for the new hyperkinetic technologies of in-stream power, ocean power, and tidal power, again, in a way, through our regulations to try and encourage an industry to move forward. finally, i will send a complement to our colleagues at the federal trade commission. their perspectives are always very valuable. thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and i look forward to answering any questions. >> thank you. chairman, welcome. >> thank you. let me thank you for the opportunity to appear here today with my friend and colleague to discuss the longstanding regulatory review program. it is -- it has been and is a
bipartisan priority for us as well as our plans for ensuring that this program continues to protect americans simmers while minimizing burdens on american businesses. today, we're announcing additional measures to strengthen our regulatory review process, including an expedited schedule for reviewing tools and guides to meet the demands of the marketplace, a new streamlined form for pre-merger filings, a new page on our web site to provide greater transparency and public participation and reviews, and a sort of review of the reviews. we are asking stakeholders how we can make our review process even better. in that same spirit, we also seek to other acts of congress that appear to be of little value but that impose burdens on businesses, particularly small businesses, and the commission. let me give you a brief overview of the ftc before the commission it describes the history and nature of regulatory reviews.
simply put, we are building on our longstanding regulatory housecleaning efforts over the years under which we have eliminated outdated rules from the madmen era, including those addressing extension ladders fiberglass curtains, and frosted cocktail glasses. it is true. as you know, the federal trade commission is the only federal agency with both consumer protection and competition jurisdiction in broad sectors of the economy, and our work touches the lives of virtually every american. we are primarily a law- enforcement agency, but we perform our mission is using other tools as well, including will make things from time to time, either when congress asks for one additional clarity is needed in the marketplace. most of our goals, by the way, results from directors of congress because you have recognized that they would be valuable to consumers and businesses alike by protecting all of us from unfair and deceptive acts or practices and by leveling the playing field so that legitimate businesses are
not at a competitive disadvantage from the bottom feeders who do not always play fair. with the, i would like to turn it over. >> thank you. two of the gentleman from the federal trade commission are going to split their 10 minutes, so they will be going back and forth, as i understand it. welcome. >> thank you for the opportunity to speak here today. although the executive order that we have been focusing on does not mind independent agencies, the ftc does endorse its goals. in particular, we endorse the intuition that changing market conditions dictate ongoing efforts to determine whether existing rules have become outdated, unduly burdensome, or simply ineffective. to insure that our work meets this objective, since 1992, we have had a voluntary program to review our rules and guides.
we examine each regulation and role in a 10-year cycle. each year, we publish a schedule of review and begin the examination of each will or guide by publishing a federal register notice, and this notice 6 comment on the continuing need for regulation or the guy and an examination of costs and benefits to consumers and businesses. we also asked whether consequent economic developments call for changes in the rule for its outright abolition. we also consider whether the measure conflicts with other intervening state, local, or national legal commands. we use these comments, and we use the results of workshops that we conduct from time to time to decide whether there is a continuing need for the regulatory command or guideline and how needless burdens could be avoided. and adjustments are warranted, we start proceedings to modify or repeal the rule or guide.
as mentioned, through the process, we have repealed 37 rules and guides. we have not repealed one out right since 2004. i think we did look at the most serious cases first, but we have undertaken modifications with respect to others since that time. we now have 12 reviews in place and one proceeding, we are considering amendments to the labeling requirements for the alternative fuels and alternative fuel vehicles. here, we are assessing how to eliminate the need for firms to apply redundant levels mandated by different agencies. in another instance, we accelerated the review of the mechanism for mandating the notification and reporting of mergers, and we intend to review -- initiate reviews of 11 more rules or guides by the year's end. , as provided in this process, i think, overwhelmingly show business support for not only the mechanism we have used but for the bulls and guides themselves -- comments provided in this process. our guides in particular stand
out as a means to reduce business burdens like clarifying what we regard to be the line separates appropriate from inappropriate behavior. in doing so, we think we have significantly reduced the cost of complying with what you know to be exceedingly broad general mandates that appear in our statute. my colleague will now explain recent measures we have taken to enhance this review process, and i look forward to your questions and comments later. thank you. >> thank you. as the commissioner explained, we have long had a program for reviewing our guides and regulations. you noted in your opening statement the importance of taking cost of benefits into account and we do that. it is critically important to us. all of our work, including the guides, is on publicly with input from stakeholders, but earlier this year, we began examining what more we could do to improve these rules and really relieved under burdens on industry. as part of this effort and very much in the spirit of the
president's executive order, here is what we're doing -- first, as noted, we are undertaking a review of 23 rules and guides. that is more than 1/3 of all the rules we administer -- rules and the guides with minister. as announced in our federal register notice today, six of the rules under review have been accelerated to take into account for rapid changes in the marketplace. congresswoman, you mentioned the do not call rule. we recently strengthened its. hast 200 million -- actually, more than 200 million registered phone numbers, and dave barry called it the most effective government programs since the elvis stamp. second, the notice asked for the public to comment on the 20-year program of reviewing rules. businesses have generally been supportive of our regulatory reviews, but we nevertheless ask a number of questions. for example, how often should
the commission review rules and guides? how can we modify programs to make them even more responsive to the needs of consumers and businesses? new regulatory reform website just what live today. because not everyone reads the register, although i know you do, and many of us do, it serves to provide greater transparency for members of the public to understand our regulatory review efforts and allows them to more easily comment on our ongoing roll revues as well as the process to review rules. it also contains links to the 37 rules the commission has eliminated over the years as well as links to other resources like the new 10-year review schedule and the streamlined hsr pre-merger form. fourth, staff seeking to identify statutes that might impose undue burdens on the commission. although the goal is laudable, some statutes have, -- can detr